Customer Reviews

Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is a very subjective and emotional review, admittedly, BUT I just wanted to thank this author for lifting the monkey of guilt off my back: the one that's been living there, whispering little nasties in my ear, ever since I left my Ph.D. program, abandoned my dissertation, shocked my fellow feminist academicians, disappointed my ambitious father, and exchanged the career track for two decades of living simply, raising my daughters,and doing our little part to save the environment.

Back in 1991, when my second daughter was born, my husband and I had no "manifesto" to explain our decision to scale back our lives. No one had attached a "name" to the conclusion I reached--after an ordeal of soul-searching, self-doubt, and even recrimination--that staying home with my babies, scaling back our ambitions and our lifestyle, and throwing my energies into raising our own organic food, becoming caretaker to a large flock of (although we didn't call them that at the time) natural, pastured chickens, of spending many, many hours volunteering with other like-minded women in our community health food cooperative, of devoting time and effort to various environmental organizations and causes, working for politicians who had believed as we did, and--most importantly--unschooling my two girls so that the world became their classroom and their minds were not limited by pedagogy or ideology, was THE most worthwhile use of my time, my passions, and my talents.

Nope. It was just a bizarre detour from my carefully laid, feminist plans. This was a life choice my husband and I HAD to make, because in our hearts we could accept no other, but society (and my own critical, Intellectual Self) sneered at our rusticity, our modest income, my domesticity, our family-centered existence. And I never, ever was able to dispel the vague shame that I had somehow, some way, failed myself and my feminist beliefs.

It was a lonely row to hoe, back then. My colleagues went on to professorships, acclaim, even some modest fame. I collected eggs, read to my children (and then taught them to read) picked and jammed strawberries, marched in parades for liberal politicians, stuffed envelopes for "good causes" and made ends meet. By conventional standards, I had "wasted my valuable education" and yet--when I looked at those healthy, happy, flourishing faces smiling up at me like sunflowers,when my Little Family paused at the end of a quiet, green, sunny spell of learning,playing and experiencing the day ON OUR OWN SCHEDULE,when I saw the stress that eroded the contentment of so many of my contemporaries (the rushing and dashing and scheduling and conflicting desires)our choices seemed right for us, and no waste at all. But...how I wish I'd had a greater sense of community! Of someone else to say, "Oh, yes...we reached the same conclusions and made the same "sacrifices" and we don't think you are nuts."

THIS book is that long-awaited community, that absolution of the last vestiges of guilt ("Quitter...Quitter"..taunted the little voice in my ear) still remaining, 20 years later. For publishing this, you have my deepest, most heartfelt gratitude.

(Oh, and it's a fantastic, well-written, carefully researched, intelligent read, as well!)

I really expected to like this book, but it had so many glaring flaws I just couldn't. For one thing, it needs a different title. As others have already pointed out, it should be called Radical Homesteading because that is what the book is really about (although the "radical" is extraneous since it's pretty much exactly what homesteaders do, not just the "radical" ones). If your parents don't already have a farm you can live on and/or you have no interest in rural life, there's nothing here for you. Even if you buy into what she is saying and want this life for yourself and your family, the book offers no practical suggestions for achieving it--again, unless you come from a family who will give you land, or is willing to pay your bills while you remove yourself from the "extractive economy".

The book is divided into two parts. Part one is entitled "Why" and part two is entitled "How", but she never actually delivers on the how. She, and most of the people she interviewed either live on land provided to them by their parents from a family farm or are having some portion of their bills paid by their families (student loans, health insurance, etc.).

She makes some good points here and there--in fact I'd say overall I agree with of her core ideas-- but the historical interpretation is questionable at best, the whole thing is poorly researched and written, and in the end it really never offers any practical advice. The good points she does make have all been made before--by far better writers. Additionally, it comes off as preachy and privileged with it's all-or-nothing stance.

Hayes seems completely blind to her own privilege. The vast majority of the people in the book, Hayes included, have college degrees and come from solidly middle class backgrounds. There is a lot of talk about how unimportant income is to them, yet most of the people in the book have household income which put them in the third income quintile in the US (based on the figures from 2005) and some are in the fourth quintile or higher. (Interestingly, the income from the family in which one parent is a medical doctor is not given.) Nearly all are well above the poverty line. There is a complete lack of recognition for the fact it is much easier to be unconcerned about income when your income is large enough to sustain yourself and your family.

Hayes is correct our culture is overrun by consumerism and far too many people fail to understand the real cost of what they own (or even want to own). However, she misses the opportunity to educated people about making better, more life-sustaining choices by presenting the options as a strict either/or. Although she backpedals a bit at the very end of the book, her philosophy is largely presented as an all-or-nothing proposition. If you aren't growing all your own food on your family farm while homeschooling your children, you and your spouse must be working a 60+ hour a week at jobs you hate so together you can earn the six figure income it requires to afford a McMansion in the suburbs and two brand new cars while sticking your kids in daycare and eating all of your meals out of take-out bags in front of the tv. She blatantly ignores the fact, statistically speaking, very few people are actually living that life.

I also found it interesting Hayes encouraged readers to turn their backs on the "extractive economy" and live off the land, but she was fine with people taking money from family members who worked for jobs which were part of the same system they were eschewing. I was also a bit baffled by the rationalizations of the families who turned their backs on the "extractive economy" to become self-sustaining units of production, but then sought out and accepted government aid.

I won't take the time to point out all of the nonsense (asthma caused by working parents, homeschooling to avoid E. coli, pre-industrial life re-envisioned as utopia, etc.), since several other reviewers have already done so.

I was surprised by how much I disliked this book. When it was suggested for our book group I was really excited to read it. But unfortunately it just didn't deliver. Even if you are already a true believer, there isn't much here for you.

The core ideas behind this book are important and certainly ripe for discussion in our current culture. But, they need to be supported by adequate research and practical solutions which can be implemented by those who aren't living on their family's farm.

Shannon Hayes and her husband made a personal choice after college to step back into the same kind of "simple" rural life in which she had been raised. Seeing the many advantages this brought to her family, she chose to do graduate work researching how others making similar choices felt about their "radical" lives. The first half of the book recounts "the history of domesticity and feminism" while the second part provides input from those she interviewed, " to give a clear picture of the many ways this lifestyle can work."

Though Hayes attempted to find "radical homemakers" in a wide range of neighborhoods, the lifestyle "works" best for those in rural communities. Even the urbanites included tend to be in areas where they can raise a few chickens in the backyard or have ready access to thriving farmers' markets.

Those who step back from the rat race that our consumer-focused culture has become are to be commended, but there is a disturbing kind of nostalgia for the past that these case studies don't really touch. Hayes idealizes earlier agrarian times while conveniently forgetting that life for many--most--in those times was, quoting Hobbes, "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." She emphasizes health care as an area where expenditures were far lower in the past, with many homemade remedies published in cookbooks of the early 19th century, forgetting that mortality rates were also much higher prior to the many advancements of modern science.

Hayes too often gives, inadvertently or not, an elitist spin to the topic. She brags at being able to live a "radical homemaker" existence on $45,000 annually--even though the median family income in 2008 was just over $52,000. She fails to recognize that there are "connections" her highlighted case studies have beyond those of an "average" family or couple are likely to be able to rely on. For example, she notes that her own family was able to live in South America for several months while she did research for a book, an unlikely possibility for almost all the population.. Another family includes a husband who stays home while his wife works--not so unusual anymore, except that his wife is a physician, not a secretary or customer service rep or any of many far more common occupations.

Overall, while the concept is one that should continue to be explored, Hayes' book is less satisfying than I had hoped and certainly not one with suggestions for escaping the consumerist trap that could be used by more than a tiny fraction of the population. As an earlier reviewer noted, it would not be possible (or wise) for the world's vastly expanded population to go back to the kind of life she romanticizes. The current overly materialistic culture we live in in the West needs to be changed, but Hayes does not provide a workable solution for more than a few, ironically privileged individuals and families.

I wanted to like "Radical Homemakers". I really did. I wanted to love it, in fact.

But when the author creates a text that uses supposed facts as quoted in quasi-fiction as its sources (e.g. Kingsolver's "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle"), cites the same source over so many times within the context of one chapter that the content starts to resemble paraphrasing, uses the same sources again and again who (coincidentally) also happen to have given "advance praise" for the book on the back cover, and cherry-picks history to find sources that fit with her concept, the result is something that looks more like an ill-researched rant than a scholarly analysis of a new, and vitally important, social movement.

As someone who the author would probably view as a "radical homemaker", I feel that the roots of the movement she discusses and attempts to analyse - that is, the movement towards domestic independence, simple living, sustainability, fiscal responsibility and avoidance of debt, and the re-establishment of the household as a place of wisdom, warmth and culture - have not been addressed appropriately, honestly or in a balanced way.

The author's unquestioning repetition of feminist mythologies of supposedly ancient egalitarian human culture does not fit with anthropological or archaeological evidence, and the support for these beliefs is slim. As a feminist, as much as I would like these myths to be true, I generally prefer fact to fiction when the above is presented as scholarship.

In short, this is a book that addresses an important and growing movement, but does not do it well. The issue of women moving back into the home is complex, and Hayes has attempted to answer it simplistically, rather than admitting that, perhaps, many reasons exist and not all of them fit with her model.

I am quite certain that this book will be embraced by a large number of women who see in themselves the "radical homemaker" Hayes attempts to pinpoint, but I am equally certain that they are deserving of a better attempt than this. A deep and intelligent analysis of the movement is being cried out for - unfortunately, "Radical Homemakers" is neither deep nor intelligent.

If any movement is to be documented, it has to be documented fairly, honestly and well. I believe that this book is heavily flawed, extremely biased and, by the nature of its own shoddy scholarship and an attempt to grasp at an easy populist "sound bite" premise and concept, is detrimental to the women and families it claims to support. As a self-proclaimed "radical homemaker", I believe we deserve better. Much better.

I obtained my copy from the local library, and am glad I didn't buy it. I'll be returning it, and won't be taking it out on loan again.

Since I came to the Tightwad Gazette in the early 90s, I've been something of a "radical homemaker" myself and I could relate to the subtle and not-so-subtle jabs some of Hayes' study participants reported from friends, coworkers and family. I was very excited to hear about this book and look for not new techniques and tips but where I might find other like-minded people.

So imagine my disappointment when I read the first part of this book and was shocked by how incorrect much of it was. As other reviewers noted, it ascribes to the theory of an egalitarian Neolithic agricultural society. Much of what I have read indicates that this is not true, but since we are talking about an era before accurate written records, it's open for debate. However, I think it's still kind of odd that she would imply that this was our "true" cultural heritage, but the war-making, nomadic peoples who conquered the agricultural societies somehow weren't?

What's really not excusable is making it seem as if "the housewife" was a dominant reality pre-1960. The reality is that since World War 2, more women worked than didn't. The jobs may not have been the kind that invited aspirations in the 50s, but over 50 percent of women in the States were working them. Please don't take my word for it; see Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. The image of the housewife dominated popular media precisely because she was such a rarity.

Little things, like getting the Boston Tea Party wrong; American housewives wanted to use domestic alternatives to tea? What domestic alternatives? Bigger things, like her connection to higher reports of depression to a more mechanized civilization. While I agreed with the evidence she cited that showed that technology could be alienating, I can't help but think of all of the people I know who have family histories of depression and other mental illnesses going back to when their forbears were farmers in the early part of the 20th century. Maybe one of the benefits of modern civilization is the potential that someone will listen to those things- and care. Her larger point about health insurance I find to be very controversial. While I understand her objections to a corporate health insurance and care system that finds financial incentives in illness, as a mother of four children, two of whom have asthma, it's not something I'm willing to give up. I also, frankly, resented her implication that children's health problems are a result of the stresses created in the home. Maybe, but I think some of those things are also due to genetic predisposition.

I agreed with much of what she said about our educational system. If anything, I feel like she didn't go far enough and close the loop that connects consumerism to public schools. For more on that, read anything by John Holt, but start with Learning All The Time. I also found it hard to argue with what she said about our food system and how it impacts personal health and environmental well-being. And I am onboard with her overall point: if we want to change the destructive, consumerist path our civilization is on, we need to start with our habits and home, and if we want to do that, we have to reclaim (or learn for the first time) skills our ancestors depended on for survival.

This is an important topic and I'm glad it highlighted the ongoing conversation. I look forward to seeing it continue with better scholarship.

For those following books about local food and new takes on nutrition ala Michael Pollan, Sally Fallon, Bill McKibben and others, here's one that helps put into even greater context the lifestyle choices that extend beyond the kitchen. Shannon Hayes not only gives historical and political context to the choices of these radical homemakers, but gives the theoretical context that's needed to see this as a feminist movement as opposed to a step backwards. Barbara Kingsolver cracked the woman-question open in her book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life (P.S.), noting that convenience foods allowed women to work and play with more equality, but were a devil's bargain in terms of nutrition and sustainability. Hayes shows that radical homemaking is not about keeping the woman at home, without power or voice. This book is great for book clubs, women's studies classes, consumer science classes, and reading on your own (though you'll want someone else you know to read it too so you can discuss it). Dividing it into sections on WHY (history, politics, theory) and HOW (examples and anecdotes from diverse approaches to radical homemaking) makes the book extremely readable. Her knowledge is deep, her voice engaging, and her language accessible. I haven't seen anything like this out there.

I think Hayes went too far into a niche with this book. She defines radical homemakers as a kind of ideological movement, and her book focuses more on "social justice" (although she seems to give few examples of how these RMs are furthering that idea) than actual domesticity. It is heavily farm-based. She doesn't want religious types to be part of her movement, and she suggests that no public schools in the US are any good.

Having said that, the book is a good addition to a library about downshifting, off-ramping, or consuming less. What it is not about is homemaking. It doesn't speak that much to the majority of homemakers, who while they must learn economy and the joys and frustrations of doing things themselves, aren't really interested in running farms or building their own homes.

I was very disappointed (even angry at times) with this book, especially that she offered no solutions as to ways to incorporate this lifestyle or ways in which it is possible to live simply yet not completely off the grid. I also felt the second half of the book of interviewing people from around the country in "all walks of life" was not as diverse and it should have been. Although she went across the country for interviews it was a lot of the same with very little "meat" to what she said she was trying to do with this book.

Realistically what her book promotes is not possible for most of the population and I speak from experience. As a fellow feminist who made the decision to live a life of simplicity, to stay at home with my children and live on the income of my partner I know what this requires and I believe Hayes does not even touch on the realm of mental, emotional, social and financial strains and stresses that also comes with this type of decision and lifestyle. While happy that I made the choices I have, I also recognize that it was not as easy as this books makes it out to be.

I was also very disappointed in the lack of acknowledgement for her education and what it has afforded her within her life and how it has contributed to the ability to have this lifestyle. I do not believe that it is realistic for many people to live this lifestyle that she is promoting, especially those who live in urban areas. As a resident of an urban city I know this to be very true, and while I would love to do more, my surroundings only allow me so much to work with. I am just like many other people who want to sustain themselves but have limited resources, which is not acknowledged enough in this book.I agree, our materialistic Western culture does need to be changed, but this book does not provide the solutions to get there.

The ideas presented in this book are decidedly in sync with the current interest in local and global sustainability, but here we, the readers, are given a broader historic perspective and a bigger role. We are offered a path into a critical re-thinking of the choices in our lives: Why do we work so hard and not gain enough for ourselves and our communities? What exactly are we looking for in our everyday lives, and is that so difficult to attain? How can we contribute to a better state of being for ourselves and our communities in a daily way? Is it possible to want what we want rather than what's been advertised as such? Hayes is a thinker, and lucky for us, a writer.

Although the author is very sincere and well intended, her tendency to generalize, stereotype and quote Betty Frieidan limits her insights. Much of what she has learned and shares with you will be things you have likely heard before; much of this book sounds like concepts from the 70's and 80's perhaps being rediscovered.

According to the author, "Radical Homemakers are men and women who have chosen to make family, community, social justice and the health of the planet the governing principles of their lives. They reject any form of labor or the expenditure of any resource that does not honor these tenets".

Seeing the "health of the planet" and "honor" in her manifesto made the ideas seem hackneyed right from the start. The political diatribes used to support this viewpoint seemed endless and naive. For example, she rails against the high cost of health insurance, suggests that some Radical Homemakers might forego health insurance (their "insurance" is low-stress living and a healthy diet/lifestyle), but does not mention the root causes of high health insurance. She discusses the need to develop "interdependence", but does not seem aware of the interdependence that currently exists all around her. She repeatedly mentions the need for "social justice", but does not really discuss what she means by this, and it does not sound as if most existing Radical Homemakers have either the financial resources (most she interviewed seem to live just above the poverty level) or the time to do much to help others.

On the plus side, if you are trying to find someone to give you permission to leave your high powered job, stay home with your children and stop listening to your left-thinking feminist acquaintances, this book is perfect for you. This is a political book that suggests leaving your career is OK, but only if your "partner" semi-stays home too, otherwise you're just another soccer mom (the author specifically states that Radical Homemakers are "More than just soccer moms...") and you will have no "power". Since some of the soccer moms I know are busy cooking vegetarian dinners before they head out to do their volunteer work and car-pool home the children of the neighborhood single-moms, her viewpoint seemed narrow-minded. As for the power thing she worries about a lot, she needs to get out of the northeast and head down here to the south so we can take her out to lunch and explain the obvious to her (power comes from within and is not about who makes the money) and hopefully make her laugh a little over iced tea and know she is not alone.