Listening to NPR (as usual) this morning, a local show was discussing various social and economic issues in relationship to the 2008 election.  A woman called in and said that it was part of the neo-conservative Republican economic agenda to keep women in the home by reducing programs that take care of children and the elderly.  She was clearly offended and disgusted by the concept of elderly and children being taken care of by their own families instead of strangers paid for by tax dollars. Part of her point was that it was usually women who would end up doing the work of caring for elders and children...but I am failing to see how this should cause outrage?

Now if you want to say that women should not always have to be the ones to stay in the home if they don't want to, and that it should be acceptable for men to be domestic too, then I can agree with that. I fully believe that if a woman sincerely wants to be in the workforce, she should not only be allowed, she should be treated equally and compensated equally to a man.  But when we get to the point where we place a woman's "right" to pursue a career or occupation over caring for the needy and vulnerable in her own family, then our priorities have gotten really screwed up.  The roles and inner-dynamic of a family should be decided by that family, not by some overarching policy dictated either by the government or by pushy idealogues, be they patriarchical or feminist. I have no qualms about saying that if it becomes necessary, a woman (or a man as the case may be, just so long as it's someone) SHOULD sacrifice her personal wishes and ambitions to take care of a family member in need of care. To do any less is not only a sin, it's crazy selfish! Ideally, such a choice won't have to be made. But this is life, and sometimes, in the immortal words of the Rolling Stones, you can't always get what you want.

Personally, I wish with all my heart that I could quit my job (which is not a mindless, wage-slave, only-for-the-paycheck job either; I work for an environmental non-profit and I make almost-decent money) and instead stay home to cook and bake and knit and write and draw and have babies and do laundry and learn a language and just in general do all the things that used to be considered what made a woman accomplished. I don't care if anyone thinks doing so sets back the "the cause of women" - to heck with that! Any supposed "feminism" that devalues childrearing and domesticity, and tries to tell me what I ought to want to do instead is just as bad if not worse than patriarchical sexism. Traditional women's roles are not bad, they are wonderful! It is only bad when women are made to do them against their wishes or are unappreciated for them.

Post Script:  Lest I be attacked for heartlessness, I am not opposed to the government providing assistance for child care or senior care in situations where staying home is not possible, such as single parent families or poverty that makes two paychecks unavoidably necessary. But in all other cases, people ought to put family ahead of personal achievement. My opinions about the role of government and what we should expect out of it is a whole other post.

Permalink | 2 Commented |

____________________________________________________