The Mommy Wars Are Back

I just discovered this story about law professor Linda Hirshman, who claims that stay-at-home moms are hurting themselves and their children by not working. Apparently, 54% of women with graduate or professional degrees are currently not working, choosing instead to stay at home with their kids.

I feel I have to respond to this, being a stay-at-home mom. I listened to Diane Rehm on NPR today talk to Leslie Morgan Steiner, the author of “Mommy Wars: Stay-at-Home and Career Moms Face Off on Their Choices, Their Lives, Their Families,” a collection of 26 essays by mothers. She said that in putting together this book, she decided she would not interview the mothers, because inevitably, her bias would make its way into the writing, and she wanted the raw, total honesty that came from these women writing completely frankly about the choices they made – the good and the bad. This book sounds appealing. It sounds non-judgmental, honest, and supportive. If I were trying to decide what I should do, I would certainly read this (and I may still read it).

But for one woman who made one choice to judge and dismiss any other woman is just plain wrong.

Linda Hirshman cited research that showed that children of working mothers are as happy as children of stay-at-home moms. I would argue that that’s not looking at the whole picture. If I were to propose that once and for all, we need to determine which choice is the “right” choice, then clearly we need to look not just at short-term happiness of a child, but also the long-term effects. When the child grows up, how is he/she in interpersonal relationships, career success, mental wellbeing, and parenting ability. How many serial killers or other criminals had mothers who stayed at home versus worked? How many beds in mental institutions are filled by former latchkey kids? How many future divorces are the result of an absent mother?

But that’s all crap. If life were lived in a bubble or could be broken down so simplistically, then sure, we could make this judgment. But it’s not. Stay-at-home moms can raise crappy kids. Working mothers can have wonderful kids. I have good friends with great kids in both categories. A working mother can have a great support system that is wonderful for the child. A stay-at-home mom can pull her hair out doing the mundane, repetitive, thankless tasks that often accompany her daily life. But is that to say that just because I have a Master’s degree, I am above changing diapers, brushing teeth, and preparing meals? Should I assume that this admittedly sometimes thankless job is less important than sitting behind a desk writing computer programs for eight hours a day?

I decided, when I was pregnant with my first child, that raising my children was more important than furthering my career. But I have a friend who started a program helping inner-city middle school girls succeed, and she is a working mom. And she has two wonderful little girls that are smart and sweet. Financially, she doesn’t have to work, which gives her some feelings of guilt. But her choice is the right choice for her, just as my choice is the right choice for me. I support her decision, and she supports mine. Is her choice right because she has a graduate degree and is using it, or because she is helping other people? Is mine wrong because I am wasting my degree?

From the story on abcnews.com, Hirshman said,
"A good life for humans includes the classical standard of using one's capacities for speech and reason in a prudent way, the liberal requirement of having enough autonomy to direct one's own life, and the utilitarian test of doing more good than harm in the world. Measured against these time-tested standards, the expensively educated, upper-class moms will be leading lesser lives."

So because I chose, for the time being, to “waste” the money spent on my education by using “my capacity for speech and reason” to raise good kids that I am raising to be good citizens, am I not being prudent? Frankly, I have to be more prudent in using my capacity for speech and reason around my children than I ever had to be in the working world. A harsh word is taken to heart, faulty logic assumed true, and lies are crushing. And how I waste my money is up to me. Has Hirshman never wasted money, never been to Starbucks for a latte when a cup of Taster's Choice would do, never bought a pair of shoes that she didn’t really need, never splurged for a book or a movie? If I chose to waste money learning about computer graphics and artificial intelligence, isn’t that really my business?

I have a husband who supports my decision to stay at home, who takes care of the kids when I attend writer’s groups or writing conferences out of town, and who encourages me to do what makes me happy. Financially, I am dependent on him. But because we have enough money, I have the freedom to reassess my career goals and, for now, to be a writer. Later, when I choose to return to work, I can build upon the new strengths I have gained by my experience on this job to make me a better employee.

But as far as doing more good than harm in the world, I suppose I’d be losing on that front. After all, I did just sign my boys up for Serial Killer Summer Camp, and the elder one is a graduate of Bullying School for Minors. What do you think? If I volunteered at the food bank while they were in class, would that balance out the harm they’re learning to do?

Seriously, though, the math she uses to determine whether my choice is worthwhile is faulty. One could argue that she, as a law professor, bringing more lawyers into the world - who in turn file frivolous lawsuits and increase the cost of health care and insurance, and prevent teachers from feeling they can discipline their students for fear of being sued – is not necessarily doing more good than harm in the world. She’s not saving lives, like my husband the physician who can focus at work knowing that his children are being well taken care of, who doesn’t care if I spend “his” money, and in fact resents when I refer to it as his money.

The problem is not that stay-at-home mothers are not financially independent, it’s that the job of caring for children is not valued in this society. Women who choose to stay at home do not earn social security despite working long hours doing often difficult work, don’t necessarily contribute to personal retirement plans (since they have no money of their own), and have very little political voice. Childcare providers get paid minimum wage, with little opportunity for advancement. Teachers get paid insulting salaries in schools that have to seek taxpayer support to get additional funding. Working mothers get less maternity leave, and fathers less paternity leave, in America than in any other country. The message America seems to be sending is that while the children may be our future, they’re not an important enough investment to commit to now. Communities with large numbers of taxpayers who no longer have children in the public schools vote against levies because they don’t want more of their hard earned money to go to support today’s youth. And so those communities decline, because young families with children in school will stop moving in, choosing instead to move to where the better schools are, which, eventually, will also decline.

As far as whether to work or stay at home, I don’t know which is the better choice. Frankly, I don’t think there is one better choice. If I have a daughter, I want her to know that she can choose whether she works or stays at home after she has children (if she decides to have children). If it weren’t for all those working mothers out there, making the sacrifices they make, it would be hard for me to make that choice, and for other women to make that choice. But that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t have the choice to stay home. Ultimately, the right choice is what is right for the whole family, with the best interests of everyone taken into account. If something is working for everyone in the family, then it’s really nobody else’s business. If society were more supportive of men who decided to stay home, more than just a few pat-in-the-back articles in parenting magazines (which are, admittedly, a good start), then perhaps more women would choose to continue to work.

In the end, what matters is that we live in a country where we have the freedom, the right, to live how we want to live. And I suppose that means we also have the right to be judgmental and rude, but I’m teaching my kids not to be like that. I wonder if Hirshman thought that an important lesson for her children.