Unhappy Housewives

My review of Darla Shine's book Happy Housewives was published over at Literary Mama yesterday. It was a very hard review to write because my initial response was to just give it the written equivalent of the raspberry. So much of Shine's anti-working mother rhetoric is highly unpalatable and, at one point, I wondered if I should even bother reviewing the book, not wanting to give her any more publicity. The content is old news -- Total Woman mixed with Dr. Laura. The book was badly researched -- if you want to read anti-feminist bilge, Danielle Crittenden or Caitlin Flanagan are are more adept at their craft. But the message -- that women should be at home, that feminism is dead -- it's still out there today and I'm afraid if we don't continue to challenge that message, our daughters may face a much uglier world than we do.

Just yesterday, for example, I was at a function and as people asked what I was up to these days, I was mindful of how the conversations unfolded.

"So I hear you no longer have the nanny"

"That's right."

"That's good. You're now raising your children."

It was not a malicious comment -- simply a thoughtless one. Even when we had a paid caregiver, I was raising my children. No, scratch that, my husband and I were raising our children. Parents raise their children. Full stop. We decide who works, how often we work, and who helps us out with the caregiving responsibility in the way that best meets the current needs of our family in this highly imperfect world. But Shine, with her idea that one needs to be at home, full-time to be raising one's children feeds this myth.

"So you're not going back to work."

"I will be staying at home with the kids for a little while, I think."

"I guess you'd miss them too much to be able to go back to work."

No, not really. Of course, I'm sure there would be days when I missed them. I'm sure I would begin to romaticize being at home the way right now I often romanticize the notion of returning to work. And just as I sometimes remember work, not as the high-stress place which slowly chipped away at my soul, but as the place with long lunches, a fat paycheck and one-time access to a client's private jet, I also would forget about the days of tantrums and poo and feeling lonely and trapped, and think only of the rare days where no-one's sick or overtired or cranky and Baby Girl and The Dude and I cuddle together on the sofa reading books. Shine, like the misguided commenter, tries to make the decision to be at home or not be at home full time an emotional or moral one which simply isn't fair. Finding an acceptable and economically feasible work/childcare balance is such a complex issue. It is not a matter of missing or not missing the kids for eight hours out of a 24 hour day. Besides, missing or not missing one's children does not equal loving or not loving one's children. When I am away from the kids, footloose and fancy free, I do love them dearly. But do I miss them? Not so much.

And then, one of the women at the party revealed that she had taken on a part time job. The job is not a glamourous or ego-fulfilling one. It is a job for which she, a degree holder from a prestigious university, is vastly overqualified.  She does this job on the weekends, after looking after her two young children all week, simply to help pay the bills.

"I'm lucky my husband let me take this job instead of making me work full time."

Shine feeds the myth that childrearing is not a job; it's a requirement of being female: "If you made the choice to get pregnant, you should make the choice to stay home with that baby if you can afford to, and I think that most of you can afford to," Shine writes. Woman pregnant = woman fulltime caregiver. Biology = destiny. It is not a matter of figuring out if it better for one's family overall (economically, psychologically, socially, spritually) to have one person working for eight hours a day as the children's primary daytime caregiver or to have both partners working for eight hours a day doing something else and assigning the daytime caregiving responsibilities to a childcare specialist. It's a matter of shouldering one's maternal responsibilities. So in the case of the woman who made that comment, it's not that it made more economic and social sense for her to do the childrearing while her husband works for pay. And that if there is any shortfall in income, either one of them or both of them might need to take on a second job to help make ends meet, or find a way to trim expenses. Nope, in his mind (and, sadly, in hers), she isn't working. He's "letting" her stay home. And therefore it is up to her to figure out how to bring in some extra money by working "part time". Lucky indeed.

My big beef with the Shine book is that it is written by a well-heeled, well-connected, media savvy woman who can pick up and then cast of the mantle of feminism quite casually (a non-feminist world might not have paved the way for Shine to be a full time stay at home mother and have a nationally syndicated radio show and book deal).

Shine can one moment say that women are biologically called to be at home, that being at home says something about your level of parental love, that one can only raise one's children by being at home and then zip out to do a talk show. But when her words are out in the world, unchallenged, they are sometimes taken on a much more literal level. People forget that the words were said with a mind to generating controversy and increasing book sales. People begin to think that her words ring true.
 

Comments

[andrea]

I can't believe you would say that you don't miss your babies when you are away from them! Why would you have them? Shame on you.

[politically incorrect mom]

You did a great review Jen!

[Asha]

I just read your LM review, and was so impressed with your thorough, even-handed approach to what is clearly an incendiary book. Thank you for laying it all out so clearly, without taking Ms. Shine's (or possibly her editor's) bait.

[nancy]

Great post. I won't be reading that book.

[Andrea G.]

Thought-provoking post. As someone who has had stints as a full-time mum, worked part-time from home and is now working full-time out of the house, I can especially relate to that description of romanticizing one role while doing the other. I also agree that finding an economically feasible family/work balance is so complex and personal. That's why simplistic "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" are a waste of time. Didn't we figure that out a few decades ago?

[Her Bad Mother]

Although Caitlin Flanagan does it better than Shine, I think that your comments here can be applied to her, too. Especially the last paragraph, which underscores the problem with a lot of Mommy Self-Help Lit these days: it's written to provoke, for the purpose of selling books, rather than stimulating dialogue.

I'll be posting about Flanagan later this week, after I get mommy-bashing blogtard issues out of my system, so it was good to read this today. Whet my whistle.

Now must head over to read you at Lit Mama...

[Ingrid]

I have just started reading The Feminine Mystique, and it is sending chills down my spine - I had thought it would feel very dated, but Friedan's analysis of a society that in one generation (pre to post-war) had gone from championing choices and equality to cloistering women in a one-size-fits all housewife role feels all too familiar. Why do we still have to be debating this? The conspiracy-theorist part of me feels that it is a clever tactic to divide women and keep them from attacking the real problem here (high-quality, accessible early childhood education?) but that's just cynical, right? It's so reassuring to hear parents (not just the mommy-obsessed media) calming the debate down by acknowledging the validity of all these parenting options...

[Edmonton Jenn]

I thought your post was very well written, and I pretty much agree with you.

What I don't understand is the idea that only a mother should be the one raising her children. Where on earth did that come from? Throughout history, and still in a lot of cultures today, the mother is not alone. She has help from her extended family and friends. Why do people here feel that if you get help, be it from a nanny or someone else, that you are no longer raising your own child?

[Eryn]

I absolutely loved the review, I think you did a wonderful job with it.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: No matter what choice we make, there will always be someone there to criticize it. And that's not what it should be about.

[Karen Rani]

I've said it many times, that a happy mother makes for happy kids. I've been home for 3 + years and worked at a high-paying, high-powered job before that. The only thing I didn't have power over was my one billion hours a week away from my oldest and my husband. Now, I'm happier than ever, working from home on my own business, and raising our children as well. I see nothing wrong with any of these situations for everyone else - if you want to stay home, (and you are able) than go for it! Same with working - go for it! I've just found what works for us, and my way is no more right than anyone elses. You gotta do what blows yer skirt up, ya know?

[Miche]

Terrific post. We don't live in a "one size fits all" world and hopefully we never will. Why do some people think that there is only one way to be a Good Mother?

[Sandy]

Ouch! at those family comments. I've had similar ones, but have never been able to launch into a coherent response - usually there's some child-related crisis that comes up just as I start to say something.