Customer Reviews

Get to Work: . . . And Get a Life, Before It's Too Late

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(27)

 

 

Previous reviewers here have complained about Hirschman's alleged lack of "balance" in this book. But the author never claims to present a "balanced" view of the work/home dilemma that many middle-class and privileged women face. (BIG HINT: the subtitle of her book includes the word "manifesto"! It's printed very cleverly as a "little red book!" Get it?)

This book is a polemic, not a sociological or historical analysis of the work/home issue like Judith Warner's _Perfect Madness_. _Get to Work_ challenges women and men to ask themselves the classic philosophical question, "what makes for a good life?" and challenges them to defend their choices, understanding that their choices have moral implications for themselves, their families, and the rest of the world.

The previous reviewer asks what she thinks is a rhetorical question: "Imagine the outrage if someone wrote a manifesto saying all women should be compelled to stay home and raise babies!" I think that book's been written, several times over, by Laura Schlessinger, James Dobson, Danielle Crittenden, Caitlyn Flanagan, Penelope Leach, T. Berry Brazelton, Phyllis Schlaffly, Rick Santorum, and dozens more reactionary celebrities who cling to essentialist ideas about gender because of their fear of American values, democracy, and modernity. We're so accustomed to hearing the "opt-out" decision framed as a moral choice that sanctifies wives and mothers who don't work for pay and demonizes women who do as grasping, unnatural, and selfish that it is a bracing shock to the system to read an argument that turns this so-called "morality" on its head. She makes a compelling case that women should remain in the paid workforce for two big reasons: first, because true feminist change is unlikely to happen if a majority of educated women "opt-out" of reaching the highest ranks in their profession, and second, for the family's economic security. Thus women who "opt-out" endanger both the goal of true gender equality and their own families.

I seriously doubt that most of the reviews here were written by people who have bothered to read the book. I think these are mostly reactions to her recent articles in the American Prospect and the Washington Post, by people who may have been (reasonably) offended by Hirschman's claim that there's something infantilizing about working in the domestic sphere only. I have my questions about Hirschman's prescriptions--for example, she doesn't say who exactly should do all of the domestic work she slights--but I think her book gives us a refreshing take on work/home issues.

Upfront, so you know my "politics," I am a 40ish working mom with an advanced degree, and 2 toddlers at home. My husband and I make about same salary, and financially either one of us could choose to stay at home.

Overall, I found Ms. Hirshman's manifesto to be overly harsh and unbalanced. I do agree with some of her points -- women should be able to be financially independent, and it is important to get an education and pursue something you enjoy, and I also agree that changing diapers and some other "baby duties" can be a bit tedious (although for me personally, those things are far eclipsed by the joy I get from my children). I also agree that husbands need to pitch in, and do an equal share around the house and with the children. I also think that female attrition in the workplace does make it more difficult to get equal treatment.

However, that said, I miss my children terribly and I can certainly understand why a parent would want to be home with their kids or work part-time. Furthermore, I think it is absolutely ludicrous to expect a parent to sacrifice the happiness of their family "for the good of womanhood/society." It seems that searching for a way to align family and societal interests would be more productive.

I do think it is risky to quit working and be completely dependent on your spouse for income. Although my spouse and I trust each other completely, I have seen men take advantage when the balance of power (money) shifts in their favor -- so, I understand the concern. In my experience, the workplace seems to be accomodating to me as a parent, but less so for him (i.e. my employer tolerates my taking time-off for kid-related things much better than his). In other words, our culture/society needs to change so that it is not so lopsided in how it treats/accomodates moms and dads -- which is also part of her mantra, but does not get the attention it deserves.

As a mom, I have noticed that early-on alot more of the child-related burden is on the female; no matter how supportive a husband is, he cannot be pregnant or nurse the baby. Also, I have noticed that even though my husband is an equally involved parent, my children tend to prefer mom over dad (I suspect this will change over time as they grow up). In summary, her Manifesto totally ignores the fact that early motherhood is exhausting for the female esp. when working, and that work often becomes alot less interesting/meaningful when you become a new parent.

I really respect women who stay home -- it is a difficult job and requires unending patience and love. I have a hard time criticizing someone who chooses that.

I do not think the answer is to flog and insult women (or men) who choose to stay at home with their children. I think the answer lies in understanding, accomodating, education and tolerance.

I would like to see society/employers allow parents some flexibility to place greater emphasis on their families. I would like us to learn as a society that spouses should treat each other with respect and as equals, no matter what the role. I would like parents to raise their male and female children to expect to "share the load" whether it be household responsibilities or income. In short, I believe, while Ms. Hirshman's book contains some basic truths, it does not offer a palatable solution, and is often critical and judgemental.

At the end of the day, the freedom to choose one's way of life is the greatest freedom of them all. However, Hirshman raises an incredibly important point: there are consequences to our choices and we need to realize what they are. Hirshman's thesis may be contentious, but you can't say she doesn't have a point.

Even if you're the happiest housewife in the world, it's important to recognize the cost of your happiness: economic freedom, social prestige, and intellectual productivity. Even if -you- don't put much value on these, you must acknowledge that society does. And society will judge you by them.

Of course, at the end of the day, it is every woman's right to choose how she will live her life. But this book raises a point that is strangely ignored in this age of equality: this choice that each woman makes is the exact same choice as is made by each man.

The question of equality between men and women cannot be considered without an inquiry such as Hirshman's. And each woman's choice as to who she is relative her husband and children should not be made without considering the points Hirshman raises.

I ordered this book because I thought it was a follow-up to her first book "Get to Work: A Manifesto for the Women of the World". It isn't. It's the same book, printed with a slightly different title. If you order Amazon's joint offering of her books, you will get two copies of the same book, with different titles and cover art. The original book was thought-provoking but elitist and somewhat dry. You would be better served purchasing Leslie Bennetts' book "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?", which addresses the issues raised in the Hirshman book in a more relatable and readable fashion.

Linda Hirshman has a definite opinion -- that women should not waste their educations raising kids. I happen to think that spending time raising the next generation is worthy of an educated person's time. However, she makes some excellent points about how unequal the workplace still is, and why this is a problem. She also has a concrete solution: fix the tax code that unfairly penalizes a married woman's income. This is a valid point and it is refreshing to hear someone focus on something concrete that could change in our current system. However, I believe that our current system of only allowing full-time employees access to affordable health insurance is a greater problem. My husband and I seriously considered splitting the child care and the income-producing work. The fact that one of us had to maintain full-time status for health insurance meant that one of us would focus on child care, thus the division of labor.

A negative in the book is that she fails to account for how children will be raised if everyone is working full time at more exciting and lucrative jobs. And the title may put some people off from the start, particularly those who collapse into bed every night after a day of taking care of children. We wouldn't tell a nanny or a day care provider to "get to work" but somehow people don't mind saying this to at-home mothers who work at least as hard (since they are usually also cooks, financial managers, house cleaners, etc.). However, the book is concise and to the point, and she is not trying to hide the fact that she is making a value judgment.

This book is telling it like it is. I know SAHMs don't want to hear it, but as someone who's been there, done that, I have to say I agree with the author's premise entirely. I was a SAHM mom (usually working freelance or part-time, but never making more than $22K/year, even though I've got a master's degree from a great school). The power disparity that developed between my husband and me eventually became utterly unbearable. When he dumped me (and yes, all you "happily married" SAHMs, there is a VERY good chance this will happen to you, soon as your adorable little kids are older and not so adorable, and same with you), I had to scramble to recreate something of a secure life for my teenage children and myself. If I had it all to do over again, I would never have made myself so economically vulnerable. I know SO MANY 40- and 50-something women who are stuck in pathetic sham marriages to men they despise (and haven't slept with in years) because they need the money. To me, this is nothing but legalized prostitution. The author is right--get to work and NEVER let yourself be financially dependent on a man. The chances of a man wanting to support you forever are almost nil. What are you going to do when he dumps you? It seems like all the SAHMs writing reviews are 100% confident Daddy/Provider will always be there for them. Wake up ladies! Men get bored. They get tired of being the sole breadwinners. They have midlife crises and break your heart by sleeping with their secretaries. Ever wonder why every "happy family" portrayed on TV and in the movies features LITTLE children? Because that's when families are happiest together. As the children grow up, and especially once they become extremely expensive teenagers (ever try to insure a teen driver or two?), men tend to bail one way or the other. BE PREPARED to support yourselves. And the only way you can do that is to keep working. As I said, if I had it all to do over again, I would have found a way, ANY way, to keep working throughout my children's lives. Sure, we had some good years together at home. But it wasn't worth the poverty and anxiety that followed once the breadwinner decided to walk...think about it!

This is an excellent piece of scholarship and a long-overdue addition to the literature on women's equality and feminism.

Society's unwillingness to examine the politics of the household in the age of the working woman is inexplicable and frustrating. Working women constantly face a barrage of media anxiety about the impossibility of juggling both home and work-- yet no one, save Hirshman, focuses on the need to change men's roles at home and the failure of men to "step up to the plate" at home, in both ways large (making professional sacrifices like relocation, getting off the partnership track) and small (remembering to pick up a gallon of milk from the store on the way home). It is simply impossible for anyone, male or female, to manage both spheres single-handedly with success-- but the solution is not to yank women out of the workplace or force them to Mommy-track their careers, but to shift an equal portion of the family/household burden to men. A simple and elegant notion that shouldn't be revolutionary but unfortunately appears to be in our society.

Hirshman recognizes that, for women to be truly equal, it isn't enough to participate in the workforce; rather, if women are to do well in the workplace, men must be willing to share responsibility for the family and home. Her writing is clear and articulate; her message is powerful and compelling. Strongly recommend the book.

I loved this book. What Hirshman said makes so much sense. If women are ever going to have equal status with men, we have to insist on equality in the home, not just in the workplace, because what happens at home affects the workplace.

It is a bit jarring to read her discussion of an economic model of marriage, but she didn't make this theory up herself. It is just one level at which to examine relationships, but it's an important variable that many people don't seem to want to talk about.

I've read a lot of criticisms of this book and Hirshman's views, and one that seems to keep repeating itself is, "I value raising children over raising a pile of paycheck stubs". I think this comparison doesn't always hold. I did not choose my career as a professor to make money (I'd be a bit disappointed if I did, to tell you the truth), but I chose it because I love the work. So it's not about money to me--it's about where my identity is. And a strong part of my identity is in my work. I think Hirshman wants more women to be able to say that.

The other side of the saying is also not completely accurate. It's not a choice between kids and career, but it's about how the division of family labor needs to be reorganized. She's not telling women not to spend time with their kids, but she is telling them that both spouses need to do a fair share of housework and childcare, and men tend to do far less than their fair share. I'm not necessarily blaming men, it's a societal problem. When a career woman becomes pregnant, many people ask her how much time she will take off of work, or whether she will even continue working at all. How many people ask that question of the father-to-be?

Before I read the book, I had heard Professor Hirschman on an NPR interview. Her comments seemed straightforward and non-controversial. The more that highly intelligent, highly educated women choose to exit the workforce, the less chance there will be leaders in the business, scientific and political realms who are female.

I've now read the book and still don't understand why this is controversial (other than from the perspective that women have no place in positions of leadership?!)

She is not "attacking" women who stay at home -- she is rightly pointing out that if all women do stay at home, our economy, our country, our culture will be run by men.

All of this "staying at home has tremendous value" really does miss the point. We live in a world. The world has an economy. The world has a political structure. The world has culture. If women avoid pursuit of leadership in these realms in favor of staying home, men will continue to run the world.

This discussion doesn't apply to all women. There are men who are content to not be the leaders of their time (all of the factory workers vs. the one CEO, all of the practitioner doctors vs. the doctor who found the polio vaccine, all of the painters vs. Picasso, all of the political volunteers vs. the President). There are men throughout history who were content to serve their family and their community. We don't know these men's names -- because they did not advance the cause of their societies and civilization as a whole.

There is lot to say about whether one -- personally -- deems it a higher quality of life to serve the family or a close knit community vs. to make great contributions to the world.

But it is ridiculous to attack someone who makes the very reasonable point that if all women stay home, women will forsake their ability to make the great contributions that shape civilization.

It is still a fact that women -- while an equal demographic force -- are a minority force in top undergraduate and professional programs. Women are underrepresented in every possible area of business, political or artistic accomplishment. Whether comfortable or not, it is a fact that every woman who is capable of attaining a position of leadership and chooses to stay home is diminishing the possibility of women attaining equal status in our society.

On the household level, it makes perfect sense that if women had the same stance as men (cooking and cleaning are a great mystery more understood by the opposite sex), the results might be more equitable. (I always marvel that when certain "household" tasks move to the professional level -- cooking, baking, decorating, dry cleaning -- the tasks are dominated by men.)

As for the rearing of children, how can one argue that if children have stay-at-home mothers they have powerful role models that say that men accomplish things in the greater world and women's sphere is limited to the home?

What I resent about Hirschman's manifesto is that it characterizes "changing diapers" and "minding children" as low-level work. The question still remains--if a woman has children, SOMEONE has to take care of them. Will that be highly-trained, fairly-paid workers? Or, (as it is now) low-paid workers who seldom enjoy benefits (or get the respect they deserve)? We're caught in a dilemma -- the better paid the childcare worker, the less likely it will be that an average family can afford the cost. But I can't help thinking that the more society (and Ms. Hirschman) devalue childcare work, the less-likely it will be that women will feel comfortable leaving their children in the care of someone else--because truly gifted childcare workers will leave the profession in favor of a better-paid, more-respected line of work.

What I feel is the TRUE failure of the women's movement is that it didn't do more to help women have children AND fit it into their working lives. I always notice that women who are in high-level positions talk about CHOICE ("if I want to return to work, that's my choice; if I want to quit work, that's my choice") But remember that CHOICE is the luxury of the upper class. Most women, struggling with (or without) their partners to maintain a middle class existence, feel compelled to return to work after just 12 weeks with their infant. Think about that! Legally, the only thing a company HAS to offer women is just 12 weeks of unpaid leave. What kind of choice is that? What's even more laughable, we're now told if we were truly good mothers, we'd breastfeed our children for at least a year -- but we are given no support in society to realistically do this (have you heard of a "nursing room" at most corporations? How about on-site daycare?) If we REALLY want liberation, we should be able to work AND raise children--AND be supported by society for doing the good work of bearing children (and bonding with them!) Leaders in the women's movement should get off their high-horse about "choice" -(there is no such thing in the average working woman's life)--and FIGHT for longer maternity leaves and fairer salaries WHILE we take off to bond with our babies. How about if a woman could (legally) get some sort of paid maternity leave, AND have it extended to 6 months? This sounds so paltry--but a step in the right direction.