The Feminist Revolution? Or Another Kind of Oppression?
As a mother (and, for another week, a mother who works outside the home) I always pay special attention to the "Mommy Wars" topics that come into my e-mail. Sometimes they come in via NOW (the National Organization for Women), and sometimes through the New York Times. But never do they seem to do justice to the complex stage of life that is Being A Mother.
While I agree with both sources that women who wish to work while raising a family deserve more options to make that a viable option (affordable quality childcare, flex scheduling, telecommuting, decent wages and health benefits, etc.), I disagree with both sources that women should, nay MUST work in order to maintain the strides of the feminist revolution. They seem to focus on society's need for women in the workforce and neglect to recognize children's need for their mother (or father), for a parent in the home. More importantly, they neglect what the woman actually wants for *gasp* herself.
You see, I was under the impression the feminist revolution was about not forcing a woman's hand. Granted, the trend used to be for women to be nearly forced to stay home. They weren't accepted in the work force and were expected to be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen," as they saying NOW loathes so much goes. But I kind of like the phrase. To me, that conjures up an image of comfort and stability. I enjoy cooking and baking, I love the feeling of pregnancy (at least until the pains and heartburn of the third trimester kick in), and I HATE wearing socks. Do I think all women should be forced to follow my lead and live their lives as I see fit to live mine? Absolutely not.
On the other hand, there are lots of career women out there. Nothing makes them happier than getting up at 5 a.m. to go for a run, shower, and dress in a crisp business suit. They'd happily spend their days on the fast track to an excellent career with great pay. In fact, some women would be happy to work even if the pay was less than ideal. Because, let's face it, 24/7 with a toddler can be maddening.
But for some reason, NOW and the New York Times won't extend the same courtesy to moms who want to stay home. They're fighting for better pay and benefits, flex schedules and options for the working mom, even to the point of saying a stay at home mom is doing a disservice to society. But they're not fighting for those things that make staying home an option to moms who want to. How many moms are forced to work (often menial, thankless jobs) because they don't have the option of staying home, because their family is critically dependent on that extra bit of income (what's left after the high cost of day care and gasoline) to pay those last few bills?
What we should be lobbying for is, yes, more options. But more options all around. Universal healthcare so a woman who doesn't work can take care of her health, even if her husband's job doesn't provide it. Stipend payments to the stay-at-home moms who are doing the most important job this country has - raising future generations. More part-time options, more flex-scheduling, and more telecommuting.
Personally, I would love to work if I could telecommute (most of my job would be easy to do from home). But my employer won't have it, so I'm returning home, despite the slight dip in income we'll suffer. Because, for ME, spending time with my son is more important than having or giving him the finer things in life. And for ME, I have no fast-track career I'm losing out on. For ME, I'll only be in my early 40s when I'm no longer mothering a child. But that's me.
No man OR woman should be telling mothers they MUST stay home or they MUST go to work. We should be fighting for options, because that's the only true freedom.
While I agree with both sources that women who wish to work while raising a family deserve more options to make that a viable option (affordable quality childcare, flex scheduling, telecommuting, decent wages and health benefits, etc.), I disagree with both sources that women should, nay MUST work in order to maintain the strides of the feminist revolution. They seem to focus on society's need for women in the workforce and neglect to recognize children's need for their mother (or father), for a parent in the home. More importantly, they neglect what the woman actually wants for *gasp* herself.
You see, I was under the impression the feminist revolution was about not forcing a woman's hand. Granted, the trend used to be for women to be nearly forced to stay home. They weren't accepted in the work force and were expected to be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen," as they saying NOW loathes so much goes. But I kind of like the phrase. To me, that conjures up an image of comfort and stability. I enjoy cooking and baking, I love the feeling of pregnancy (at least until the pains and heartburn of the third trimester kick in), and I HATE wearing socks. Do I think all women should be forced to follow my lead and live their lives as I see fit to live mine? Absolutely not.
On the other hand, there are lots of career women out there. Nothing makes them happier than getting up at 5 a.m. to go for a run, shower, and dress in a crisp business suit. They'd happily spend their days on the fast track to an excellent career with great pay. In fact, some women would be happy to work even if the pay was less than ideal. Because, let's face it, 24/7 with a toddler can be maddening.
But for some reason, NOW and the New York Times won't extend the same courtesy to moms who want to stay home. They're fighting for better pay and benefits, flex schedules and options for the working mom, even to the point of saying a stay at home mom is doing a disservice to society. But they're not fighting for those things that make staying home an option to moms who want to. How many moms are forced to work (often menial, thankless jobs) because they don't have the option of staying home, because their family is critically dependent on that extra bit of income (what's left after the high cost of day care and gasoline) to pay those last few bills?
What we should be lobbying for is, yes, more options. But more options all around. Universal healthcare so a woman who doesn't work can take care of her health, even if her husband's job doesn't provide it. Stipend payments to the stay-at-home moms who are doing the most important job this country has - raising future generations. More part-time options, more flex-scheduling, and more telecommuting.
Personally, I would love to work if I could telecommute (most of my job would be easy to do from home). But my employer won't have it, so I'm returning home, despite the slight dip in income we'll suffer. Because, for ME, spending time with my son is more important than having or giving him the finer things in life. And for ME, I have no fast-track career I'm losing out on. For ME, I'll only be in my early 40s when I'm no longer mothering a child. But that's me.
No man OR woman should be telling mothers they MUST stay home or they MUST go to work. We should be fighting for options, because that's the only true freedom.