The issue is not as complicated as all of this ink spilled about it would seem to indicate. The issue is about choice, lack of discrimination and equal pay.

When women are pigeonholed into being mothers and housewives, they lose their choice to be something else. When women are paid less because those who are deciding their pay feel that they should be wives, housewives and mothers, they are discriminated against. To me feminism is about a womans opportunity to make choices for herself. To make choices without facing discrimination. A woman should be able to make a choice to be an opinion columnist, a lawyer, a manager, a combat soldier or a stay-at-home mother. And for that matter, men should also be able to choose to be stay-at-home fathers. There are many men who are great chefs, why not great parents too.

Among the many things that are wrong with Brooks thesis is that he is making a claim that certain choices are more proper for women, because they are women. A woman who chooses to be a litigator or a combat soldier is making the wrong choice for a woman. According to Brooks, the right choice is to become a wife and mother. This is the argument that is corrupt. Not the idea that a woman should have the choice to be a stay-at-home mother.

I have 2 thoughts. Back when I was in college, I wrote a column for a campus newspaper on Take Back the Night. I titled the piece, "men can stop rape too". Meaning, they can stop raping women, simple as that, and I still believe that the way to end rape, is for men to stop doing it. A simple solution, right? Likewise, this notion that feminism failed because men didn't buy into it isn't only the fault of women, it's the fault of men too. Both sexes make a society. Men can stop leaving the chores and housekeeping and child rearing to women, if they choose, or if they are given incentives to do so.

The personal is very political. However the only way to get gender issues on the table is to carefully integrate them into all the "red meat" issues men in power (and women who hold power) care about: economics, international trade agreements, health care (kind of), tax law, social security.

Time to get to work.

Unfortunately, Rebecca Traister's article in response to David Brooks communicates very much the kind of simplicity of perspective that she seems to be seeking overcome. So too do some of the early responses.

To suggest, which she clearly does, that David Brooks position can only be interpreted as the words as a scared or intimidated male does not add any clarity to the situation. This itself contains a simplistic stereotype and an old gender role: Should a man find fault in a feminist idea or seek to challenge it, he must be threatened by it (the implications of how men should be is quite clear here).

The fact is, a clearly picture of gender relations is coming out of the bag which breaks this simplicity. For example, Warren Farrell's book--Why Men Earn More--breaks down very clearly the different choices that most men and women make when it comes to work and their lifestyle (and much of which supports choice-feminism and Brook's more basic points). And yes, a major determining factor is women's choices to take up more interpersonally fulfilling careers and turn down more working hours. But are there many women who chose the opposite. Yes, absolutely that too. The answer comes when we can hold this dialectical position and not get so emotional reactive when we here the other: that as groups men and women are different--and there is a huge amount of empirical evidence to support this, it isn't a fiction--but that doesn't proscribe the behavior of any one individual. Women can (and do) do whatever they want. Choice feminism is therefore where it is at.

Good grief. I've spent the last little while reading articles from the era of "the new woman", 1910 ish, and gee, the same issues were being discussed back then... It's mind-boggling. It's as if NOTHING has changed. The mantra back then, a woman could have any career she wanted (in fact, this is stated over and over again in era articles)but, naturally, most sensible women want to be mothers and homemakers - if a man will have them. 1910 was a time of exponential change, much like today and women were threatening to gain independence (and the vote) and so the Powers That Be created the "new profession of homemaking." They even created entire schools to teach this important science. This was for middle class women to learn to become good mothers and wives and for lower class women to learn to become better domestics. Anyway, I've posted a lot about the era on my website www.tighsolas.ca.. including an interesting article by Gertrude Atherton. The material point is this:if a woman doesn't work (for stimulation or money) she is in danger of being a bag lady when her husband dies or leaves her. I can count a dozen of my mother's contemporaries (in their 80's now) who divorced in the 70's and became poorer, (some much poorer) and their husbands (who had careers) became richer, and often remarried and had another family. (I also know a few 'old maids' who retired quite rich.) As it stands, I mostly stayed at home while raising my kids because of my husband's bizarre shiftwork hours and dearth of work for me in my area (and kept up a career but as a writer sometimes working for free or volunteering:) and, now the kids are grown,and most anxious to get away from us :) and I spend my days and nights with my dogs and cat, and if my husband left me today I'd be destitute....It sends chills down my spine really. How did this happen?

Maybe had I been a so called traditionalist I would have actively sought out a mate who had more earning potential, (a few women I knew did just that, I thought them pathetic) and then put away some money 'just in case' every month instead of spending it on useless jump ahead software programs for the kids - but as a feminist, I thought this irrelevant. I was convinced I could take care of myself financially whenever the day arrived. As it was, my husband expected me to go out and get a real job when times got tough, say when he got laid off the THREE times. Sometimes I wished I could have said, "But that's YOUR job. I'm the homemaker. I cook and help the kids with their homework and clean. Well, I cook and help the kids.." Meanwhile my lovely sons are no more or less well adjusted than the kids of my many friends who put their kids in daycare and spent the 90's stressed out, juggling full time careers and family - and who now have retirement incomes to look forward to.

As it is I will work until I'm 85. I so admire these women. (I always joke to the very few 'traditionalist' women I know (mostly relations) that traditional marriage is a kind of prostitution, a bartering of baby making ability for lifetime of financial support.) Also, remember, in olden times, children felt obliged to take care of their parents financially in their old age. This was a kind of safety net for the mom, who valued her boys more for the money they could earn. This is not the way in our privatized consumer society. Check out my non commercial website for historical insight into what it was like to be a woman in a fascinating era. What comes around goes around. PS. My 20 year old took a year off school, travelled around the US by backpack and ended up at the Grand Canyon, trekking to the very bottom, and sleeping out on a ledge at night by himself with the scorpions and describing it all in emails back to me. (He didn't even join the Scouts in his day.) This is no doubt, a reaction to my intensive style (see overprotective) mothering (and I was pretty lax compared to many around me)and his comfy suburban home town rearing. God I hate the suburbs! It's not like your kids appreciate you for your 'sacrifices.' This is a rant..oh well. So many women have it worse off..I know. But that's the point.