Andrea Tantaros / @AndreaTantaros / / 26 comments
In 1992 Hillary Clinton sneered at the idea of being a homemaker, even as she was about to assume the unelected role of first lady. “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas,” she said, “but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.” That “I suppose” speaks to the idea that being a housewife is something akin to being an astronaut for many such women. Sure, it’s theoretically possible, but it’s hardly a realistic option.
In my view, being a stay-at-home mom or a housewife is a pretty damn noble goal. It need not be some sort of servant position, either. After all, “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.” The arguments for and against women being full-time moms have been dissected to death in our culture. What hasn’t been discussed is the biological aspect to the debate (and I don’t mean the “women are genetically born to be mothers” line).
Thanks to feminists like Betty Friedan, women have a great many options for what to choose to do with their lives. The futurist Alvin Toffler discussed the paradox of what he called “overchoice.”....To Read More.....
No comments:
Post a Comment