There’s a moment from my college career seared into my memory. I sat in a class entitled “Women and Politics” led by a dynamic professor; a black woman who had fought her way to becoming head of the Political Science department in a state-funded university in Kentucky. She was also extremely active in the state’s Democratic party and NAACP. She was more than deserving of my respect. Until…
“What does feminism mean to you?”
Various answers from the class, most of which could be described in one word: “choice.” The class agreed: feminism allowed women the choice to do and be whatever and whomever they wanted to be. (Note: I understand that in our patriarchal society women CANNOT do and be whatever they’d like. Or, they can, but they’ll have to fight harder, work longer, and get paid less.) One girl, playing devil’s advocate raided her hand: “So feminists would support my decision to be a stay at home mom.”
She was met with silence, stunned stares, and a diatribe by our professor railing against her comment. She would set the movement back decades by doing that, our professor surmised.
Hold on one damn minute.
You mean to tell me that it is my choice to do and be whatever I’d like to be…except if I chose to fill traditional gender roles. THEN I’m a female chauvinist. Forget the fact that raising the next generation of well-rounded, ass-kicking activists (of all sexes and genders) has to be done by somebody. Men should be raising a generation of amazing men and women, but so should our women. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that a woman can’t work and be an amazing wife/mother/life partner/ spiritual guardian; whatever.
I’m saying sometimes people in the movement fight themselves and the ideas that they’re purporting. A woman tells you she wants to be a stay at home mom. Don’t attack; ask why. Is it because she believes that all there is for her is to get married and reproduce? Or is it because she feels like that’s her best way of serving the world? Perhaps she sees what we may not: that a woman can fulfill a traditional role while being anything but traditional.
The stay at home mom is only one example. Everywhere I go, I encounter women (and men) of all backgrounds and lifestyles judging one another. That girl isn’t a real feminist because she likes to flirt with boys. That boy isn’t “queer enough” to be part of the gay community. You can’t be a supporter of social justice and a member of a certain religion.
When did we get enough people on our side to be choosy? On second thought, isn’t the argument all about egalitarianism, and not exclusivity? Why are we picking and choosing activists and supporters? Let’s learn from our differing opinions and lives.
What’s right for you may not be right for me. But we can both agree that we should be able to pick what’s best for us, as individuals.
Let’s be pro-choice in all aspects of life.
So, whoever you are, I’m interested in whatever you have to say and however you’d like to say it.
26 Comments
Just curious, when were you in college and what age was the professor who made the diatribe? I only ask because I feel like (and I may be off the mark) that the over-emphasis on the idea that all women must be out in the workforce, and stay-at-home wife/mother was not a valid choice may have been a hallmark of previous generations of feminism, where there was a lot more struggle against the post World War II “nuclear family” ideal and women had to really fight to be taken seriously as candidates for jobs outside of the traditionally “feminine” secretary/nurse/schoolteacher ilk. (not to say that struggle has completely ended!) Most of the third-wave and forward discourse on feminism I’ve seen DOES accept these things a valid choices for women (and for men who may choose to be the stay at home parent), and I’ve seen a lot about feminism in regards to domestic issues and parenting as well. And then there are stripes such as radical or anarcho-feminism that want to re-imagine the whole top-2% benefiting workday structure for people of all genders.
Then again for many American households in these times. having one parent stay home, either parent, isn’t an option if they are to make ends meet. This problem is also one that should be examined in looking at why people make the choices they do.
This was fairly early in my college career (about 8 years ago). The professor was, to my best guess, somewhere in her mid 40s.
I think that you’re right. There is a growing number of young feminists who are embracing that anyone of any sex or gender can do anything they damn well please. I think the problem lies in the fact that the vets of the movement (and therefore a lot of the leaders) share the opinions of this professor.
I don’t know about this at all.
I’m currently in a situation where me and partner are strongly considering me quitting work for a few years to raise my son. By far the main (if not the only) reason that I am unsure is b/c I am scared shitless of the scorn I will get from other women (mostly feminists) if I become a SAHM for awhile. I feel immense pressure from these women to work, regardless of it’s best for our family.
In every other way – financially, what would help our family the most, even career-wise (i’m currently changing careers) it would be so much better for us if I did this. But I’m afraid of the scorn from feminists if I do.
It reminds me of an article I read talking about DISGRACEFUL it was that Kate Middleton quit her job to become princess. Arguing she should work just for the sake of working b/c of the example it sets for other women. The biggest piece of rubbish I’ve ever read. Especially since the article itself even acknowledged she’ll easily have 40+ hours a week of stately duties to attend to in such a role and could do far more charitable work this way. But the author didn’t care. She just wants every single woman to work, regardless of it’s best for her or her family. Absolutely rubbish!!!
Some Feminists can get so caught up in freeing themselves of whatever patriarchal behaviors they personally disdain that they may be blind to the fact some people have practical reasons to engage in them. As Jenny alludes to, this sort of mistake is going to be more common among early generation feminists who faced more visceral difficulties and who understandably tended to have trouble seeing a stay-at-home mom as being a good thing, particularly since our society heavily undervalues housework and child care. Any sort of group or demographic is subject to this fallacy as it pertains to institutions they have concerns about or interests in.
Feminists are not a homogeneous group. They have different experiences, and they can make mistakes (particularly as they concern circumstances they are not adequately familiar with). There is room for disagreement and for continual development and refinement in the philosophy.
Statistically speaking, even if females and males are equally likely to do anything, there will still be boys who play with trucks (just as much as girls do), girls who play with dolls (just as much as boys do), men who work as investment bankers (just as much as women do), and women who stay at home (just as much as men do). Unless your teacher believes that *no one* should be a stay-at-home parent (men and women alike), it shouldn’t take much effort to see that the teacher got it wrong.
In other words, you’re sort of preaching to the choir.
Thank you so much for sharing this post because I feel like I was the only one who felt this way and not just about feminism but about all aspects of fight. Rule number one if you are trying to protest something or anything like that is you have to stay together and no matter who might join you you can’t turn them away because they don’t meet your expectations of what a feminist or gay person or black person or whatever might be. I do agree that feminism does mean choice but I think that it’s also about not being ashamed of being a girl. A feminist is someone who can flirt with men and women, if that’s the way your chips fall, and not be ashamed of that. A feminist is someone who can celebrate what God gave her as a woman, the ability to have a child, a smart brain that can be used for anything (even if it’s not socially appropriate,) the ability to look really hot in a pair of high heels even if they may hurt your feet. The list is endless and just because you believe that women should have a choice doesn’t mean that you can’t celebrate womanhood itself.
Maya,
Thanks for commenting, Maya. This is exactly what I’m talking about. There are some activists (and not only first generation) that think I’m not dedicated to whatever cause I may be talking about at the time because I’m such a “girl.” I wear skirts and makeup and hate to get my hands dirty. The strong people in my life (men and women) get panicked phone calls when there’s a spider in my house. I giggle. I have flaws. But womanhood means something different to each one of us. So does manhood. And that’s what we need to remember. I’m glad to have found a group of commentators so accepting an open-minded. If only everyone felt that way.
Commentators? Really?! See, I told you I was flawed.
I agree that this seems to be an opinion that’s becoming less prevalent as a new generation of feminists continues to grow and become more vocal. That said I feel you danced awful close to a judgement of your own when you suggested the reasons behind someone wanting to be a SAHM somehow affect the decisions validity. Obviously no one wants to think a woman (or a man) feels that they have a particular duty to fill a gender role, but even if someone wants to fill a traditional gender role and be traditional, as opposed to as you said being “anything but traditional”, that’s still a valid choice.
I do recall once someone suggesting a reason why stay-at-home-parenting can be thought of slightly different (which is not to say belittled or maligned in any way) and it kind of goes to your core theme of choice. A large number of people can seek out whatever major they want in school and attempt to become whatever they’d like to be. Most of them may have parental support but many don’t. It’s a decision that can be made by an individual. It’s harder to say that someone made the level self-directed choice when they say they chose to be a stay at home parent of either gender. Only people with existing wealth or means of supporting themselves can make that decision the same way they can choose a career path to pursue. For the majority of people who make that decision, the decision is made by them and a partner, often a spouse or significant other but obviously lots of other arrangements exist. As such to say “I chose to be a stay at home mom/dad” is actually “my partner and I chose to have me be a stay at home mom/dad”. I think perhaps that reliance on another individual was a much larger cornerstone historically for feminists seeking new opportunities for women.
Good point!
In a sense… But I still find myself critical of the notion that decisions made with a partner or family in mind are less “free” than those made otherwise. The problem is that if we start being critical of “free choice,” we start judging others’ lifestyles from inside our own skulls. Not only does this exemplify the “postmodern” problem, it is completely unfalsifiable.
That is, if I construct an argument similar to: “I can conceive of no reason why a woman would want to be a housewife, therefore, if a woman chooses to be a housewife, it must be the “patriarchy’s” fault.” There is no way this can be proven wrong. If I ask the woman in question, she may claim to have made the choice “freely,” but then I can just come back with the response that she cannot see how the “patriarchy” is controlling her.
I will be honest and say that I do not see explicit arguments like I outlined above very often anymore. But I do see them implicitly in much the same way the author of this blogpost saw it in the discussions she lead. If it’s any consolation Dawn, you’re not the only one who had/has thoughts like these.
An issue tied to the last two posts is that some people may be concerned about individuals making choices/accommodations that would make them exceedingly vulnerable to the whims of another human being. Women have the right to “mess up” by becoming stay-at-home moms as much as they do getting college degrees in fields they don’t like, but a concern down the road is that a stay-at-home mom can hurt her ability to become gainfully employed and survive in the event her relationship turns abusive (and she needs to leave it), particularly since our society and economy do not significantly value the work of stay-at-home moms. The sentiment that able-bodied women need employment to protect themselves can be justified, but it should also follow that able-bodied men must do the same. If the broader argument is instead that no one (woman or man) should be a stay-at-home parent, then it can be a valid feminist argument, but it should be quick to point out that the rule applies to everyone and not just emphasize that the point applies to women.
Personally, I would rather have structures in place to properly value housework and child care, and to provide people in controlling and abusive relationships a means of escape — because even if feminists were to collectively agree that staying in the workforce was the feminist thing to do (and even if constant gainful employment could be assured), we ultimately care about the well-being of not just feminists, but everyone.
The problem though is that this mindset is STILL judging the actions of others from inside one’s own skull. If we as feminists value “choice,” then we should work to avoid this, no matter how “rational” or even “good” our judgements may sound.
In other words: There is no way to hold private-sector labor above domestic labor without saying that some women are more “feminist” than others by simple virtue of focusing on a career. This also means that leaving a job to take care of a child is a “non-feminist” act. Heck, even balancing life between work and a family life would become a “non-feminist” act as the domestic work would detract from the private-sector work.
The above seems like it is counter to a lot of basic feminist tennets.
The point could hold together if one simply acknowledges that there really is no “choice” on the issue, that paid employment is not a choice but rather an expectation, much in the same way that a person doesn’t (or shouldn’t) have the freedom to violate someone else’s civil rights. It is not intrinsically anti-feminist to necessarily say someone does not have a choice on an issue.
However, I think I begin to make a case a little along your lines in my second paragraph of my previous post. If there is vulnerability tied to being a stay-at-home parent, no matter what sort of judgment we attribute to the “choice” to stay at home, we still want institutions in place to protect those individuals. It should follow that if we do that, then we address the concern I stated attached to people staying at home, and we open it up as a valid feminist option. Even if not to your satisfaction, I believe the second paragraph in my last post is more or less agreeing with where you are coming from.
The point I was trying to get at is that there are justified reasons for feeling that it is necessary for a feminist to have a job, but ultimately the conclusion disregards other (more subtle) factors that are at play and other solutions (even if more complex) that are available. It may not be the strong condemnation you are looking for, but this sort of breakdown can be useful to persuade individuals like this teacher (showing you see where they are coming from, and then arguing how their construct falls apart). There’s a certain sex appeal in simply calling people wrong because of [keyword], but it may not do the other person justice to act that way (even if we do expect much more from a college teacher).
To an extent. There is certainly risk involved in marriage and there is certainly risk involved with taking time out of the private sector to perform domestic labor. However, I need to assume that a person is capable of balancing that risk for himself or herself. To do otherwise would be to undermine a person’s agency. Even to hold an “expectation” (especially in the mold of respect of civil liberties) that a “feminist” keep a private-sector job carries with it the implicit assumption that a person is incapable of weighing risk for himself or herself.
Would I be against institutions that protect people who take on extra risk? No, not at all. I would happily pay taxes even to suppor these. But once again this comes back to freedom of choice. The existence of these institutions would be to minimize the risk of taking on domestic labor, letting the person choose with fewer environmental demands.
It looks like for the most part that you and I agree – which is a nice touch – but if we let ourselves get caught judging the lifestyles of others (even implicitly) we are no different from those we protest against.
I was only intending to guess where the teacher was coming from before I provided a contradiction. Those assumptions are not my own beliefs. As far as I can tell, I have not provided my own beliefs on the be stay-at-home — besides saying “our society heavily undervalues housework and child care” and perhaps implicitly supporting it in my May 27 post.
That’s really upsetting!
No wonder many activists find academic feminism problematic…..
While I don’t know if they had beliefs like this, I had signed up for a couple of classes in this general area where the teachers were unpleasant hardasses (probably moreso than any of the teachers in my major: math), and I quietly just dropped the classes (since they weren’t “required”) — I’m guessing they are the sort of people who would not endear outsiders or fence-sitters to the idea of “feminism” and particularly to “feminists.” But then I had ~four such teachers who were not like this at all. So, your mileage may vary. Big time.
Well to be fair – I’m not sure ‘activists’ are any better then academics in this regard.
I am pleased to see so much healthy conversation!
I am so happy you had the ability to stay at home with your children! My mom was a vehimently feminist woman since…probably birth. She worked odd jobs and sang in wedding bands to suplement income if my parents needed it while we were young. God, the restrictions are undue. The cliques are unfortunately, a residual effect that bred those women in patriarchal society. Not everyone thinks that way. I am probaby the most militant woman about sexism and equality…like ever and hot damn! Getting to be with your little ones I can imagine did them such good! We can’t mistake having the rights and priveledges of men with having to BECOME MEN!
Like others said, thank you for posting this. I agree whole heartedly with you. Though I never had such a defining, clashing moment with my Women’s Studies teacher, I felt as though my desire to stay home and raise my kids someday was going against what she was teaching and that she and other feminists would not approve of it. But it’s definitely all about choice and what a women feels like will be the most meaningful use of her time and effort, whether that be raising a family or pursuing a career.
I have to admit that I’m surprised by your professor’s attitude towards parents who opt to stay home to raise children. Granted, this has historically been a ghetto into which women have been forced against their will but her attitude towards ‘traditional’ work seems dated, even to me (and it’s been 20 yrs since I was in women’s studies).
Frankly, valuing the work that mothers, fathers and homeworkers do is part of feminist philosophy. As a feminist, not only do I support the choice of parents to stay home, I think the larger society should value it to the point of paying people to do it. It is a form of employment, in which the community reaps the benefit (as these people tend to do a disproportionate amount of volunteering, etc.) so why shouldn’t we fight for it to be recognized and valued.
The only time I have been uncomfortable with a friends choice to stay home and raise children was when:
1. They didn’t really want to give up their job but felt pressure to do so because their partner was unwilling to share an equal burden of child and home care
2. They undervalued their job (ie. My job isn’t as important as his job)
3. They were in an abusive relationship where becoming financially dependent on their partner was a very bad idea.
As long as people (women and men) recognize the important and valuable work that homeworkers do, I can’t imagine how it could be construed as anti-feminist.
Perhaps there was more at work in the class than you were aware of? Perhaps the woman who posed the question has a history with this prof or a political view that contradicted feminist principles?
you cant pay people to raise their kids. raising children is an expense. if we paid people to raise kids where would this money come from? rearing of just your own children doesnt produce anything. it doesnt free up time for someone else to produce something. you get paid to take care of other people’s children certainly, because it allows those parents to do something productive. and to be clear i mean materially productive. teaching a child and taking care of their needs doesnt produce food, or shelter, or clothing. we pay people money to do things that directly or indirectly accomplish those goals.
in a sense care of your own children is paid, it frees up your spouse’s time to do something materially productive.
so you cant pay a stay at home parent of whatever gender money on top of the increased amount of money the working parent earns because they have more time to devote to material production.
Actually, many countries manage to swing paying parents to stay home, atleast for some time, to raise small children. Typically, the benefits are paid through an employment insurance scheme or a social welfare fund.
Social programs that support families. They exist, just not in the United States.
This may be a bit of a tangent (or not), but what struck me most about this story is that it was an abuse of power. Regardless of whether the student who disagreed with her was right or wrong or had her head completely up her ass, it is unethical for a professor to browbeat a student like that. It’s not teaching, it’s just brainwashing. Unfortunately, there are plenty of professors, and not just feminist professors, who seem to think that the point of being a professor is to stoke their own egos by beating up people who can’t fight back (students.)
I’ll also point out that if the professor had taught the course more than once, she already knew what kind of responses she might get, so it was really a set-up.
Scott Turow’s One-L has lots of stories like this.
I know that this probably will not be seen since it is such an old article, but I had to join and post a comment to this great piece.
I have lived in the US for 7 years originally from the UK and found the above sentiments fully echo my thoughts and perceptions. As a mixed-race woman raised in an all-white family (3 white brothers) with a traditional mother at home and father works home for many years, our mother returned to working due to increasing costs and her own desires. It was in the 70s so normal for stay-at-home mums. We were deliberately raised to be a non-traditional home where boys and girl were taught to take care of themselves on the basis that we should never expect another to be able to do certain tasks because of their gender — women will not always be able to cook or have the time and men will not be handy around cars for example. Race and gender issues were acknowledged as still present even within our extended family but ever changing and were encouraged to develop our interests in these areas as well as social justice and environmental issues. As a consequence I have come across this same tendency to disqualify and discredit others who do not fit some mold of modern, progressive “open-minded” attitudes.
I find myself at odds in the US, defending stay-at-home mums, career and/or career/family women as well as arguing for fathers and male perspectives in general. I’ve had similar arguments with entrenched anti-racist, feminist, environmental and social justice activists who do believe that being religious, socioeconomic status, and educational background somehow detracts from their activism; or that good-looking, well-dressed, and professional men and women can’t actually be taken seriously as activists almost being accused of pretending to be trendy. The list is sadly numerous and has at times been directed towards myself inclusive of reverse race attitudes where apparently I would lack the experience to know about environmental and feminist issues primarily due to my color, nationality, and my failure to dress in a certain “uniform” in line with said movements. Given that for over 11 years, I worked as an environmental campaigner/educator for several organizations in the UK where I can’t remember coming acrosssuch mindsets (I may have, I can’t recall), I do find it disheartening to face stereotypical mindsets and antagonisms between people who really should be joining together rather than picking faults to discredit each other. I am not saying that it only exists in the US, but perhaps am more acutely aware of it here primarily because I constantly seem to not fit “boxes.” Such abuse of power from professors was witnessed at a US college but also unfortunately in a school for which I most recently worked from very liberal colleagues and administration with great intentions but similar views that rendered other voices silent.
As such, I value the comments above and will keep my eyes and ears open to such voices elsewhere in the US.