Is there real animosity between mothers who work and those who stay home?  For the most part, no:  Most women respect and understand the choices that other mothers make.  Yet tension surrounds discussions about mothers working outside the home. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shannon Chamberlain, writing for Reason magazine, adds to that tension in her article “The Real Mommy Wars:  Both left and right attack mothers for the choices they make” by portraying any discussion of the topics related to working and motherhood as an attack on working moms.  She focuses on two books, Caitlin Flanagan’s To Hell with All That:  Loving and Loathing Our Inner Housewife, and my book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.  Chamberlain claims the books represent the political Left (Flanagan) and Right (me), but arrive at the same conclusion:  Women ought to stay home and raise kids. 

Chamberlain criticizes specific aspects of both books, but her central complaint is that the authors would force women homeward, instead of leaving individuals to make decisions about their own lives:

Although they start at different points, the Flanagans and the Lukases, leftist and rightist critics of women’s choices, arrive at the same place for the same reason:  a refusal to see women as autonomous beings, capable of weighing alternatives and arriving at conclusions based on individual circumstances that the commanders of the Mommy Wars simply can’t possess, no matter how many polls they conduct.  Whether the particular narrative about motherhood has women conscripted into service by capitalism or feminism, what’s missing is the cool-headed free market analysis, which would regard women as actors in an arena of choices, without the conceit of top-down management.

Chamberlain doesn’t clarify how either Flanagan or I attempt to “command” other women by means of books that can only be purchased and read voluntarily.  Presumably, she means that our rhetoric attempts to convince women that staying home is best. I would take issue with that generalization, but, regardless, attempting to persuade someone is quite different from dictating their choice.  In fact, this kind of information makes markets work.  

On this Chamberlain and I agree:  Individual freedom is the foundation of a well-functioning society.  Individuals are uniquely situated to know their circumstances and preferences, and are better off in a system that allows them to make choices based on those preferences, whether the choice is whom to marry, what job to pursue, where to live, or what kind of car to buy.  Yet not all markets are equally efficient:  Markets with greater options and information are more likely to generate positive outcomes.

Consider the market for consumer goods.  Just a few decades ago, a person making a major purchase — buying a new car or television, for instance — had limited information.  You could read Consumer Reports, talk to your friends and colleagues about their similar purchases, and visit a few stores.  Today, consumers are awash in information.  Numerous websites offer expert advice and enable consumers around the world to offer feedback.  You can check prices online and read message boards and articles dedicated to illuminating the benefits and drawbacks of a specific product or brand.  The authors of the articles aren’t attempting to dictate your choice.  It’s up to you to synthesize the information and make your selection.  But because of this information, you’re better positioned to make a wise purchase than the consumer of the past.   

Other decisions work the same way.  Having more information about a job or a life choice enables individuals to make better decisions.  Individuals are free to ignore any advice or perspective, but, as a general rule, having more information is preferable to having less.  In our books, both Flanagan and I attempt to offer women opinions and information about life choices. 

Chamberlain dedicates several paragraphs to criticizing Flanagan for ignoring the role that markets play in hiring help.  It’s a valid point, but it fails to address the central message of Flanagan’s book.  Most of the book considers how women continue to be drawn to some traditional feminine roles.  She suggests that many of the activities associated with a “housewife” have been devalued in our society, and she urges women to take more seriously the pleasures these activities can provide. 

This message is best reflected in her preface.  There, she poignantly describes the process of cleaning out her parents’ home after their deaths.  Her father was a well-known writer, so librarians would be archiving his papers.  In contrast, her mother was a “war bride, nurse, housewife, imparter of strongly felt political opinions and unsolicited, highly detailed instructions for the preparation of crème caramel and lobster salad, a person to be counted on in almost any kind of emergency.”  No one was coming to review her life other than her two daughters.  In sorting through her mother’s belongings, Flanagan concludes that her mother’s life, “lived though it was in the shadow of someone with a successful career — may have been not only more worthwhile, but perhaps also more rewarding.”  It’s quite a stretch to suggest that Flanagan’s purpose is to force all women back to their homes.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism is also an attempt to provide information that is too often missing or downplayed in conversations about the choices women face.  For example, one chapter is dedicated to women’s fertility.  I highlight how rarely issues surrounding women’s natural decline of fertility are discussed in women’s studies classes (which dedicate significant time to other reproductive issues), by feminist organizations, and in popular culture.  Women tend to overestimate how long they have before their fertility begins to decline and how effective fertility treatments will be.  This lack of information has real consequences. 

Chamberlain criticizes this chapter for failing to consider the reasons why women purposefully delay having children.  This criticism misses the point.  There are entirely legitimate reasons to delay having kids, but those reasons should be weighed against its drawbacks.  I argue that many women don’t have the facts they need to make a proper calculation; they undervalue the potential problems created by delay.  Of course, many women armed with the facts will continue to opt to put off pregnancy, but they are better served by knowing the real tradeoffs when making that decision.

Chamberlain is similarly critical of my chapter highlighting research on the effects of daycare on children.  She disapproves both of my giving the impression that there are real dangers associated with daycare and my unwillingness to call daycare categorically bad.  She seems to prefer not to discuss the issue of daycare at all. 

Yet most parents want information when it comes to matters that affect their children.  Expectant mothers are drenched with advice about what foods to consume and what to avoid during pregnancy.  New mothers receive a flood of information about which toys and activities encourage an infant’s development.  Yet information on the effects of daycare — where their children may spend up to 40 hours each week — comes in drips.  We shouldn’t avoid an honest examination of daycare’s impact.  Of course, many parents have no option but to work fulltime to make ends meet, but, with more information, they may decide to seek out different daycare arrangements, and at least they will be better able to spot warning signs of problems.    

Chamberlain also feels that I paint too gloomy a picture of the workplace for women.  I highlight how many women wish they could work less, but don’t discuss if men would also opt out of the paid workforce if they could.  There is a reason, however, that I focus more on women’s choices about work.  It’s simply a reality that women are more likely seriously to consider leaving the paid workforce.  Part of this is biology — women give birth, need time to recover, and can nurse their babies — and part of this arises simply from our socialization.  The ranks of stay-at-home dads are growing, but they are still dwarfed by the number of stay-at-home moms.  Of course, men face similar crossroads in determining how much time to dedicate to career versus family, but women are much more likely to feel torn between these two worlds.

What choice should they make?  Contrary to what Chamberlain believes, I have no answer to that question.  Each individual woman needs to weigh her specific circumstances and her desires, but she should do so with the best information available.  Flanagan and I have both offered bits of advice and shared our perspectives; it’s a marketplace of ideas, which Chamberlain is free to ignore.  

 — Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

<title>To Hell with All That, by Caitlin Flanagan</title>
<link>http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0316736872</link>

<essay>