Motherhood, Immoral?
by Candice Watters on 12/08/2006 at 12:25 PM
Albert Mohler's Thursday post pointed to a debate on beliefnet.com between two warring worldviews. He defends a woman's right to choose to stay home with her children -- leaving the workforce for a season, or indefinitely, if she so desires. At odds is philosopher and author Linda Hirshman who says any woman who does that is doing something "destructive and dangerous." They are "letting down the team."
She finds mothering beneath most women. According to Mohler, "She even compared mothers to the 'untouchables' of India -- a caste consigned to sweep bodily wastes and care for the bodily needs of others."
What emboldened her to make such sweeping judgments? "I applied those standards [for 'the good life'] to the decision to stay home and tend children and the household, and I found that they were, in fact, lacking," Hirshman says. "These women are not using their full human capacity. They are not independent, and they are not doing more social good than harm."
Hirshman told Good Morning America, "I am saying an educated, competent adult's place is in the office."
And she's not content to merely voice her own disapproval. When it comes to a woman choosing to stay home, Hirshman thinks her decision shouldn't be left to her alone. It should be open to community scrutiny. I wonder if she feels differently about a woman's privacy and right to choose when it comes to abortion.
The woman interviewing Hirshman says, "You reject, even ridicule, the pushback from the opt-out moms who tell you and others that it's their own business."
"They're engaging in wishful thinking, number one," Hirshman replies. "And then, they protect themselves from any evaluation of their insubstantial thinking by saying 'It's my own d----- business.' It cannot be reviewed by anyone else, so that they're like someone who thinks he's Napoleon."
It appears she believes only she is capable of deciding what's moral. In her view, there is no objective standard beyond what she decides is right. And not only for herself, but for all of society.
She belittles both religious believers and relativists, claiming the moral high ground. Such is a thin veneer for what she really believes. She is at heart, a totalitarian. In her view, people who disagree with her are fundamentally incapable of thinking for themselves and therefore need to be told what to believe and what to do -- by her.
Hers is a frightening anti-natalist view of a future where children are pushed to the edges, doomed to grow up under the care of the uneducated and incompetent. But it's not just infants who require such care. God forbid she ends up a senile old woman in a nursing home. If her vision for what's moral were followed, by then there would likely be no servant-minded young nurses to care for her and wipe her soiled bottom.
But then she likely supports killing the aged and infirm to boot.
God save us from such philosophy.
1. Patrick said the following at 1:24 PM on Dec 8:
I had a philosophy professor who said that one is only successful in defeating an opponent in argument if one is willing to give the opponent's position the most charitable possible reading. It's easy to beat up on some straw man who might resemble your opponent, but then you haven't really shown that your position is superior. I haven't read Hirshman (though I have read similar positions) but I doubt you're actually engaging her argument. Do you really think that she believes there is no objective validity to her position besides her own assertion? Surely she has some reasoning to her theory. If you explained her argument and then told us why you thought it was flawed I think you'd contribute something more to our understanding.
2. Ashleigh said the following at 1:33 PM on Dec 8:
I remember hearing about her interview with Good Morning America last February. As a stay-at-home mom, it can be quite infuriating to hear her views. Yet at the same time, I feel bad for her. It's sad that she, as a mother herself, so misunderstands and misses the joy that can be found in motherhood.
I love what Shannon Popkin in her article "The Significance of Dog Hair and Trash Cans" (in this month's issue of Focus on the Family magazine) wrote concerning the these "menial" tasks Hirschman thinks are below educated women.
"According to God's standards for achievement, the last shall be first, and being great requires learning to be a servant of all. As the Father sifts our accomplishments, He assigns the most value to serving. This tells me that an office with mahogany furniture and a personal assistant is not the only setting for great accomplishments. In fact, caring for small children in the home provides incredible opportunity for advancement. Sticky messes and smelly garbage cans aren't detours and roadblocks; they are God's highway of significance."
She goes on to say, "Pleasing the Lord wouldn't be enhanced by bringing home a paycheck or having a title before my name. I have just as many opportunities to please Him within the four walls of my family room as I would in a corner office. As I wipe a little bottom, I have the same wherewithal to gain the Lord's favor as does a top strategist for Pampers. Tying little shoes, reading picture books and making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches grant me just as much potential to hear, 'Well done, good and faithful servant' as I would if I performed brain surgery."
3. Shawna said the following at 1:53 PM on Dec 8:
Educated, competent adults should not stay home to take care of children. Hmm, this is interesting. Do you suppose Ms. Hirshman would rather educated, competent adults hire other educated, competent adults to take care of their babies or is that a job for the uneducated and incompetent?
If the latter, I foresee rising infant and children mortality rates.
If the former, wouldn't it be better to just stay home and take care of your own kid? The cost of high quality child care probably eats up most of the extra income the mother would earn. Oh, but I forgot. Children should be educated AND raised by professionals, not amateurs. That's right. Look out; here comes the army of graduates who have been indoctrinated by professionals since birth, fully prepared to enter the work force for the rest of their lives. How fulfilling.
(Man, that sounds like an AWESOME movie plot!)
4. Evelyn Howard said the following at 2:01 PM on Dec 8:
Just today I was talking with some girls about living in both that academic world and the Christian world. One thing that we all have seen in our life and that we see as an abundant problem is that people who do not understand God's love do not understand pure love. Mothers do what they do not for themselves, but rather for another(s), their children. In May I will graduate with a BA and enter the real world, however when/if I have children I will be a full time mother to them. Not because my faith says I should, or the world pressures me to, but because I will love them so much that I will put their needs and well being above my desire for professional success. I am not saying that to love your children that you have to be a full time mother, but rather that you have to put them above yourself, even if that means being called simple minded or naive by the world that we live in.
5. Samuel said the following at 2:07 PM on Dec 8:
In response to the Patrick's comment. I haven't read Hirshman either, but it seems to me she set up a straw man about motherhood by drawing the rather stark parallel between stay-at-home moms and Dahlits. She is still pounding that straw-man furiously.
In response to the Hirshman's comment, "These women are not using their full human capacity. They are not independent, and they are not doing more social good than harm." Is anyone *really* independent? I think this 'independence' is an illusion and an expression of the American self-god. To say nothing of gender roles, people need people, period. We approach our 'full human capacity' living in community, imitating Christ's love to each other, whether than means washing feet, or sweeping poo.
6. Shawna said the following at 8:52 PM on Dec 8:
I agree wholeheartedly, Samuel. It's a wonder that Ms. Hirshman thinks going to work instead of staying home and taking care of your kids equates independence. Don't most employees have to adhere to a set work schedule with limited amounts of sick days and paid vacations?
7. Emma said the following at 9:13 PM on Dec 8:
I'm often told that I'd be wasting or under-utilizing my talents as the man who buried his talent and was chastized by the Lord, if I was to stay home. But perhaps the greater talents for which we'll be responsible before the Lord are our children? The previous post re: service to the Lord, and greatness in His eyes, makes points that are lost on our contemporaries.
Hirshman's comments insult almost all the women in human history. She's saying that their contributions to the world were not existent or do not count because they did not work outside the home. Where does one even start with that?!?
As Christians, we owe a debt to the generations of mothers (and fathers) who taught and modelled what life in Christ is to their children. Church history would be without many, many saints and martyrs but for the hard work of these parents. These martyrs spread Christianity by their sacrificial witness. This is especially clear when you look at how the Faith has survived -- no thrived -- despite its surroundings in certain militantly anti-Christian pockets of the world, even today.
But even generally, though, if women at large were to be so dismissed in history, Hirshman is the one de-humanizing them into nothing more than baby machines.
Unfortunately, hearing so many messages like Hirshman's create self-doubt: what IF I get bored with diapers, etc? What about all the other women out there that didn't find joy in those things and have been depressed? Or is their experience of motherhood not coloured by the constant messages from the culture around us, like Hirshman's, that motherhood's not something they can or should enjoy?
8. drlizw said the following at 4:14 PM on Dec 9:
A little reassurance, Emma: I suspect all stay-at-home moms (and probably all parents) have attacks of boredom and self-doubt.
I'm not lucky enough to be a mom, and I have plenty of attacks of both boredom and self-doubt, even in a profession that would no doubt be considered acceptable to Hirshman. In fact, I'm here posting this because I'm bored from grading papers and I want to (figuratively) pull my hair out.
It's always easy to think the grass is greener on the other side. Hence, whenever I am feeling blue about being single and childless, I call one of my many married friends. If I complain about being single, she'll tell me all about what a pain her husband can be, and how she wishes sometimes she were still single. I know she really doesn't mean it, and wouldn't trade any of it in for the so-called freedom of the single life. But it reminds me to do what Paul said, and be content no matter what your circumstances.
9. Ame said the following at 4:03 PM on Dec 10:
how sad ... a mind given over to the depravity of man to demean the beautiful part of God which He created within women to be and become mothers.
re emma's comment: "Unfortunately, hearing so many messages like Hirshman's create self-doubt: what IF I get bored with diapers, etc?"
that's when we discover, as mothers, even stay-at-home mothers, that God loves our children SO much more than we ever could ~ which will always befuddle my mine ~ because i so deeply and incredible love my girls ;)
10. Catherine Ann said the following at 3:02 PM on Dec 11:
In response to Patrick, and in agreement with Samuel... It's all well and good to want to "play by the rules", but this woman, and many like her, do not. Period. Those whose own logic at every turn leads to death -- who, like Hirshman, want everyone to abandon all children that survive birth -- HATE those of us that revere God-given life. We Christians have to get used to that. The enemy isn't nice. He won't play nice. He'll scream you down, cut you down, any chance he gets. All we can do is turn The Light on him and watch him writhe and hiss -- and I think that's exactly what this website is doing.
11. Susan said the following at 3:22 PM on Dec 11:
It sounds as though Ms. Hirshman assumes that we women are all part of a vast collective -- of which she should be the head. She is therefore also assuming that that the rest of us have mush for brains. So much for independence!!
12. BSelve said the following at 1:46 PM on Dec 12:
It is very interenting for me to talk to people while commuting, shopping, etc. It seems to me that many women in the world today are growing restless with the assumption that a woman can have it all. I cannot tell you how many strung out women I have talked to through the years who say, "I have a friend who stays home with her children. Sometimes I wonder if I should be doing the same." It is obvious to me that the women who are doing this are realy doing a good job at demonstrating to others the joy of doing this. I think there is a turning back to the "old way" of doing things amongst many American Christian mother's as we see the detriment of being so uninvolved. I think the homeschooling families have been a good example to us of the right philosophy in this particular area. Our church does a great job of reaching out to moms and homeschoolers. I love that. Maybe women like Hirshman see the rise of "at-home" moms and feels she needs to speak louder to be heard, so she makes sweeping, derrogatory comments.
13. Becky F. said the following at 10:56 AM on Dec 15:
I can't believe I missed this blog by Candice! I must have been behind in my reading and not gone back far enough reading until today!
Oh boy, where do I begin... To start, my mother stayed home with us from day 1 when my older sister was born, up until the second year my brothers were in school after homeschooling the 5 of us for like 15 years, when she worked part time at my brothers' gradeschool (our church's school). My mother has one grandson from each of my sisters, and next summer she'll be getting her third grandchild (my husband and I are so excited to be parents!!). She only attended one year of college and worked two years after that before she had my sister and had been full-time mom since. She is one of the most intelligent people I know, and she clearly doesn't fit Hirshman's definition of an educated woman, because she has no college degree. But, I have to say that my mom has made a greater contribution to society than any leftwing-feminist because she raised 5 children to be successful in what we do and to hold on to faith.
How is motherhood not making an adequate contribution to society? Did Mrs. Washington or Mrs. Lincoln work outside of the home? Or did they make the greater contribution because they educated their sons to be men of character who became presidents and great leaders of our country? There are millions of mothers from history who raised their children to be great people in our society, and they should not be undermined because of some new age idea.
There are two things I have always wanted in my life: 1. to be married, and 2. to be a mother. Well, I've accomplished number one, and if everything goes well, by next summer I'll have accomplished number two. I would love to stay home with my children, at least while they are little, and my husband knows that, but he's going to be a pastor, so it really all depends on how much money we have. I've had a job consistently since I started college, and I do enjoy having work to do and socializing with coworkers, but I would much rather be home spending time with my family.
Yes, it would be nice having more than enough money, but work really isn't all it's cracked up to be when you've got laundry and dishes piling up, children who need help with their homework, and other household duties on top of work outside the home. I don't want to spread myself so thin that most likely my children will be the one's lacking my time.