What If I'm Not Wasting My JD?

By Marjorie

A friend of mine told me about a Washington Post Outlook piece, Everybody Hates Linda (that was the headline in the print edition).  At that point, I had not read her underlying article, which appeared months earlier in American Prospect on line.  I had dismissed both articles as another attempt to stir up the Mommy Wars.  I refuse to accept the concept of the Mommy Wars because it always make me think of the scene from Stripes with John Candy in the mud-wrestling pit with scantily clad women.  I really don't think the Mommy Wars exist other than in the minds of those who enjoy a good cat fight (and that triggers the memory of a Seinfeld episode).  Seriously, I know a lot of women, homeschoolers and at-home moms, who work for pay in addition to being home with the kids.  I remember at my first homeschool playgroup, the other moms included a part-time professor, free-lance technical writer, tutor, and a part-time dentist.  The "battle lines" are just too fuzzy, even if we were inclined to act like members of different high-school cliques.

I have since read both articles.  The Washington Post article was written by Hirshman about the fall-out from the American Prospect article.  In the American Prospect article, she expresses diasppointment (or perhaps disgust) that "half the wealthiest, most-privileged, best-educated females in the country stay home with their babies rather than work in the market economy."  I actually enjoyed this article.  Everytime I scribbled a note arguing with her, I found her addressing my argument later in her article.  Ultimately, I fundamentally disagree with her on a few points.  I think the conclusions she draws are reasonable, I just don't agree with them.  In fact, I tend to think the opposite.

Her view is that these women should be in the market economy, increasing the presence of woman, and, ostensibly, improving the lot of women generally.  These women she calls "the educated elite" and they are the "logical heirs of the agenda of empowering women."  For her, it boils down to the idea that "elites supply the labor for the decision-making classes....  If the ruling class is overwhelmingly male, the rulers will make mistakes that benefit males..."  This strikes me as a reasonable fear, but I don't think having women in the workplace ensures their voices will be heard if they are slaving away to support the status quo.  Female partners in large law firms can be every bit as enslaved as those in less 'elite' positions.  Likewise, I don't think women at home with the kids are uninvolved in influencing the decision-making processes, especially those who are involved with politically or socially activist organizations.

I wonder if this view of women wasting their education and careers by being at home misses an important point. It seems the argument is that women should buy into the current corporate paradigm of power. We must work at jobs while our children are young so that we can be the power brokers of the future. Only in achieving conventional success, will we be a success, the theory seems to say. There are some nice political phrases for this which escape me -- something like 'ascribing to the male dominated power structure' or 'accepting the current paradigm'; something about blindly accepting what others have decided without deciding it for yourself.   Hirshman thinks we are blindly accepting a traditional view of 'women's work,' not only is she wrong about how we view our role, she doesn't seem to realize we refuse to blindly accept her view.  To many, being home with their children is a privilege, not a duty.

Perhaps its possible that the "wealthiest, most-privileged, best-educated" women, whose absence from the market economy Hirshman bemoans in her article, are looking for something better than what the corporate world has to offer. Maybe these at-home mommies are the real risk-takers, betting that their careers and their lives are better off for the path they are taking (setting aside any argument about how they feel about their children and what they think is best for them).

An example: I worked as an attorney for a government agency for three years before having my first child, after which I stayed home to be with her. Now, I'm a homeschooler, a completely unanticipated turn of events for me (I always thought they were religious fundamentalists and I am not).  I've only been asked once if I felt I wasted my degree.  Reflecting on that conversation, the only thing I felt I wasted was the time spent talking to that person.

What if in 15 years or so, I move on to a completely different career? What if my "time at home" helps me craft a new path because of the volunteer work I'm doing now for causes I believe in far more strongly than whether a particular imported item should be duty-free under NAFTA?  Oh, I may never reach my full salary potential, but is the women's movement really worse off for that? What if I become an executive director of an organization that helps abused women? What if I become a lobbyist on children's issues? Am I a failure because my salary isn't as big as it could be?

To me, working while my children are young isn't about career advancement or social movements, it's about material acquisition and consumerism.  I'm happy with what I have -- I am spoiled enough, I don't need more. So what if I spend my time with my kids. If career achievement is blooming, can you tolerate a late-bloomer?  Besides what good is 'being elite' if you're enslaved by your status?  Prince Siddhartha Gautama declined his elite birthright and eventually became the Buddha.  I don't have such aspirations, though I do strive to live a life of mindfulness, not mindless acquistion. 

Trust me, I plan to do something with my JD, even if its only to spout off at the male attorneys at the top of the current domination system. Actually, I do that now, and so can you.

I saw a great t-shirt.  It said "The revolutionaries will be homeschooled."  Don't think for one minute that I'm not working to make things better for women.  I've got daughters.

Marjorie has been homeschooling her two young daughters for just a few years.  Her family chose homeschooling for the freedom it afforded them -- freedom from the school schedule and calendar; freedom to follow her children's interests; freedom from labeling and categorizing her children; and freedom from testing and homework.  She enjoys volunteering with her state's inclusive homeschool association and writing on her blog, unclimber.

Comments

[Jax]

fantastic article and said much of what I tried to say in response to Linda on my own blog, but so much more clearly and eloquently. Thank you.

[Marjorie]

Thank you! I peeked over at your blog but was quickly daunted by the 81 comments! I'm with you about the contract approach.

[Jax]

81 comments intimidated me slightly too! It's not the standard on there ;)

Popped over to your blog too - will keep an eye on there.