I haven't read Hirshman's book, but I read her article in the American Prospect, and I think the most important point she made is that "choice" feminism is really not feminism at all, because your choices affect society, and feminism is about changing society. The point that I took away from all this is that if you are one of the lucky few women to have the talent and resources to, say, attend Harvard Business School, your "choice" to leave the workforce is not just about your family. It makes boardrooms remain heavily male, which influences corporate policy; it makes businesses less likely to hire women, because why invest in training someone who's just going to leave in a few years; it makes other women less likely to pursue careers like that, because they won't have female mentors; and it will reinforce sexist attitudes *within* the elite schools. So while it is easy for stay-at-home moms to get offended and say, who is she to judge me, it is entirely appropriate for a societal commentator to judge people's collective choices.

Individual choices DO affect society, and people need to be aware of that. It is perfectly appropriate to point out to people who drive big SUV's, build giant homes 30 miles from their jobs, or have huge green lawns in water-starved areas that they are wasting society's resources. For the individual, it's a perfectly reasonable choice -- after all, they can afford the SUV, gas prices, and home price, and it certainly makes for a safer, more pleasant environment for their family. So, too with choosing to stay at home -- it certainly makes the mother feel better about staying with her children, and work is often boring and repetitive at best, so why not leave the workforce? All Hirshman is saying is, women opting out of high status jobs en masse may be nice for the individual, but it has a negative effect on society. It's a truth many may not want to hear, but it is a truth.

If she had said stay-at-home moms were irresponsible, rather than tacking on that their lives can't be challenging or intellectually interesting, that would hold some water. As it is, that's not what she's saying. She's not just saying you're hurting society. She's devaluing your life. That's what makes it silly.

People are making some good debating points. But they are still not convincing.

I can't see a responsible parent saying to themselves that they are not going to make the best choice for their family because they want to help elevate the status of women in society. Pretending that important family choices should be driven by some sort of political competition between demographic groups is ridiculous.

While women who consciously take a submissive stance to their husbands may be difficult for some people to understand. I personally respect their choice. It's rare for marriages to have a perfect balance of power, and if it is tilted in either direction that's fine by me. So long as both spouses are happy with the relationship it's no one else's business.

Pretending that everyone has to be perfectly equal is silly. Not to mention impossible to achieve.

The economy may benefit from a greater number of women in the work force. But ultimately sane and happy families are a lot more important than the GNP.

I agree that women shouldn't be pressured to stay home. But I think the main reason many women do is because they earn less than their husbands (because of their own personal career choices) or because they want to, or some combination of the two.

Tragula, Hirshman is pushing the responsibility for women to take control of their own lives earlier than just after she's already gotten married and had kids. Her point (not all of which I agree with, so bear with me) is that the girl who grows up shunning math, majoring in art, getting a low-paying job, marrying a high-earning man and then having kids has narrowed her options down to almost nil -- basically, she's gonna end up staying at home with the kids.

Yes, by the time that woman has a husband and kids, it's fair to say "What's going to make this particular family happy?" So the idea is that women need to realize they're going to have to face this question, and to start making choices about their lives EARLY ON if they don't want to default to stay-at-home parent.

If that same girl had been encouraged to pursue math, had majored in engineering, had gotten a high-paying high-powered job out of college, had married a freelance writer with a flexible schedule -- now what choice is going to make that family happiest when they have kids? It's very likely not going be her staying home.

The attacks on Hirshman for only focusing on people with "careers" are a bit misplaced. She's not telling all women how to live; she's talking specifically to intelligent, college-educated women and letting them know that the choices they make when young are going to have serious repercussions throughout their lives, in ways that don't fit the idea that all women "can have it all."

Smart women haven't necessarily been pushed to work toward their own financial security in the same way that men have been. Hirshman is pointing out that this is a disservice to women, and that not taking your future earning potential into consideration when planning out your life is going to constrain your options in the future -- and for women, that very likely means becoming a full-time parent.

I can't say that anyone warned me about pressure to stay at home with kids being a consequence of majoring in English. Hirshman is saying it can be -- not that women should chuck their current lives to live up to an intangible ethical standard, but that they should be aware the choices they're making in their current lives have unforeseen consequences.

In my heart of heart, I wish I could be a stay-at-home mom with four kids, or more. I grew up in a big family, I love kids, and I love being a mother. I with I could focus exclusively on that. Instead, I'm a worker bee who postponed motherhood for a very, very long time so that I could build up my career, and I have some regrets about that.

But. . .

I think Linda Hirshman has a point about stay-at-homes making a mistake when they drop out of the workforce. And, from my perspective, it's not necessarily about sexual politics or feminism or anything like that.

It's just that economic life is so precarious that, I believe, any parent should hedge his/her bets and prepare for all contingencies. An employer could turn out to be the next Enron. A drunk driver could kill a family's sole wage-earner. Pension funds have a nasty tendency to disappear. Unexpected medical problems can bankrupt families. And so on. Those of us with children do a balancing act, and part of the balancing act is to make sure that we remain employable, if not always employed, no matter what.

This is an incredibly emotion-laden subject, so I mean to tread gently here and not be critical of others' choices.