As a member of HSLDA, I receive the frequent emails called Homeschool Heartbeat. This week’s topic: "The Mommy Wars." Because, like many women my age, I have been on many sides of this debate, as a single working woman with "a career," a part-time work at home mom with young children, as well as just a stay at home mom, I couldn’t help myself but to go to the source article Mike Farris refers to by feminist Linda Hirshman in the American Prospect. Mike Farris's words are available at http://www.hslda.org/docs/hshb/69/hshb6925.asp

Linda Hirshman’s quotation intrigued me, so I read the article in its entirety. I am enlightened now with a better understanding of the feminist viewpoint’s staunch opposition to the essentialness of mothering. She herself answers why feminists care what other women are doing, why my choice is bad "for all women," bringing all women down along with endangering future society.

We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society, and is widely imitated . . . [T]hese choices are bad for women individually. A good life for humans includes the classical standard of using one’s capacities for speech and reason in a prudent way, the liberal requirement of having enough autonomy to direct one’s own life, and the utilitarian test of doing more good than harm in the world. Measured against these time-tested standards, the expensively educated upper-class moms will be leading lesser lives. At feminism’s dawning, two theorists compared gender ideology to a caste system. To borrow their insight, these daughters of the upper classes will be bearing most of the burden of the work always associated with the lowest caste: sweeping and cleaning of bodily waste. Not two weeks after the Yalie flap, the Times ran a story of moms who were toilet training in infancy by vigilantly watching their babies for signs of excretion, 24-7. They have voluntarily become untouchables.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10659

Certainly, everyone is egalitarian over at the American Prospect. No outrage at the "caste system" itself, but rather only at the upper-class moms, expensively educated as "feminism’s best hope," stooping into it? Daycare workers are fine to remain untouchables, but why do those well-educated and wealthy women go so low?

Mind you, women unarmed with disposable diapers have been toilet training their infants for centuries; infant potty-training is still commonly practiced in other countries like China. Hardly a practice limited to untouchables. Disposable diapers allow us modern mothers freedom not to sit with our infants on the toilet. As every mother of a potty-training toddler knows, diapers are easier than potty-training when you don’t have to wash them out by hand (in a boiling pot over a fire, especially).

I dare say that someone cleaned Ms. Hirshman’s infant bottom, once upon a time, and thank God, they did, otherwise . . . well, human infants left unattended suffer dire consequences, even death. Why are the needs of the children not even mentioned in her article? Because it is assumed that mothering doesn’t matter, that anyone can do it at no cost to the children. If that were so, why don’t orphanages work? I’ve been inside one. Those substitute mothers keep the babies alive, some times, but they don’t look so good, you know.

So, I’m all for wiping the baby bottoms. I have a hunch that babies everywhere agree with me. I personally believe moms wipe their own babies bottoms better than anyone else. I like to kiss and hug my baby when I take her to be changed. Any other moms out there freely give love to their children despite cleaning up their excretions for years?

Well, by Ms. Hirshman’s "classical" standards of a good life for humans, caring for one’s own children hardly qualifies as suffering: Using my speech and reason capacities in a prudent way? Check, I do speak and reason sometimes with the foursome at my house. Having enough autonomy to direct my own life? Check, I am free to undertake the work of homeschooling and housework, or not. I could leave if I wanted. I could abandon my children if I wanted. I could earn an income, little or lot if I wanted to. I could allow filth and take-out to rule the nest (as she recommends). I choose (ohh, that horrible word) not to. Doing more good than harm in the world? Check, I think raising responsible, morally upright citizens counts, not to mention the other standard service projects women who stay home perform.

By such standards, stay at home moms and I are doing great. I’m wondering why feminists have a problem. Aha. We get into trouble because feminists do not believe that teaching and training children engages the adult’s speech and reason faculties enough. Feminists believe that stay at home moms suffer under some societal constructs that dictate our choices and thus we aren’t free. Raising little Christian conservatives who will grow up to raise more Christian conservatives? Well, that is most certainly not good. 

And that is the real reason for the mommy wars.