ON THE SHOULDERS OF SISTERS:
WOMEN'S WORK AND DOMESTIC ECONOMIES

Lean in. Get back to work. No matter what. Work harder, longer, later. Move up, take over. It sounds like a Daft Punk song, but it's actually the clarion call of modern mainstream feminism.

I am not one of those ‘I believe in equality, but I don’t like calling myself a feminist’ types. Forget that. I’m a feminist. But sometimes, you get an inkling of why some people might want to distance themselves from the whole thing. The snobbery, the ingrained and often unacknowledged racism and classism parading as liberation, the purposely obscure and boring scholarship. But it has recently occurred to me that we may be even more off track than I realized.

Several years ago, there was a spate of columns, blogs, and books decrying 'modern motherhood' and its threat to feminist gains. Slate columnist Amanda Marcotte took to her blog to criticize South Dakota girl-made-good January Jones for consuming her placenta in capsule-form after giving birth to her son. Maybe you think it’s a gross idea. After I gave birth, I didn’t want even look at my placenta, let alone think about eating it, but honestly, there’s a lot of stuff I won’t eat. However, Marcotte doesn’t just think it’s gross — she thinks it’s oppressive and some kind of misogynist plot to turn women into animals (for the record, I could buy the idea of a misogynist plot, but I doubt that convincing women to eat placentas is high up on their dastardly to-do list). And as you read more from Marcotte on this topic, she thinks a lot of choices women make are actually oppressive to women: breastfeeding, cosleeping, babywearing, natural childbirth, looking their children in the eye (…I'm guessing).

Around the same time, Linda Hirshman released a book called Get to Work: . . . And Get a Life, Before It's Too Late. Hirshman lamented what she saw as a trend of women opting out – staying at home and working in the domestic sphere rather than pursuing a profitable career. In a similar vein, French writer and super rich person Elisabeth Badinter's The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women suggested that “precisely at the point that Western women finally rid themselves of patriarchy that they acquired a new master in the home."

Obviously the idea of ‘The Mommy Wars’ is nothing new. In fact, the idea that there’s controversy around anything having to do with women and reproduction is a no-brainer. But I was really starting to think that there were a few things we were on the same page about. For example, women’s reproductive decisions are their own business, right? Women have brains, they know their situation better than anyone, so they shouldn’t have to run their medical choices passed Leslee Unruh or Ted Cruz or me. And yet, you’ve got Marcotte and other feminist writers attacking women for their very personal reproductive choices: how they give birth, how they interact with their infants, how they deal with childcare.

But besides the implications for reproductive justice, there is an unexplored assumption in these screeds that I believe is dangerous for women, for workers, and especially for women workers. The real criticism comes down to the idea that in order for equality to be achieved, each individual woman should be working outside the home, pursuing a career and trying to make a lot of money. Implicitly, of course, it is assumed that this is what all women want and with out it, they are super unfulfilled, Feminine Mystique-style. As Betty Freidan herself reminds us, “The only kind of work which permits an able woman to realize her abilities fully is the kind that was forbidden by the feminine mystique, the lifelong commitment to an art or science, to politics or profession."

When did we decide that? I thought we all agreed working kind of sucked. Isn’t that why I’m saving for retirement? Obviously, there are some people who are crazy about their jobs. Bully for them. But it sounds like the kind of thing that someone that, I don’t know, WRITES FOR A LIVING might say without really acknowledging that there’s very little self-actualization and fulfillment to be had when you’re working at a factory or waitressing or even being a low-paid drone at a non-profit. There’s nothing essentially feminist about tying your identity to paid work, and, in fact, if I were a big, oppressive corporation, it’s exactly the kind of idea I’d love to float. “They work more hours for less money, less benefits, fewer opportunities to see their families and best of all, they call it LIBERATION! *evil genius laugh*”

And, in fact, a big oppressive corporation called Facebook did just that and they called the idea Lean In by Sheryl Sandberg. I am only half joking here. Compared to Badinter and Hirschmann, Sandberg is a real moderate. She embraces the 'any choice is a feminist choice' mantra that makes Hirschmann go crosseyed and acknowledges that some women may not want the kind of life she's describing. But her 'you do you!' equivocation just makes the underlying message all the more insidious.

Essentially, the book has two main assumptions, both so absolutely ingrained into our cultural consciousness that it's easy to blindly accept them. The first is that women can, with single-minded focus, ambition, and the right roadmap to navigate the corporate and political power structure, make it to the 'top' in numbers increasingly equal to men. The second is that having women in power will unquestionably help women with less power – a trickle down model of feminism that even Ronald Reagan could get behind. Of course there are the cursory acknowledgments of systematic sexism, but it's definitely difficult to argue that you can win the game while also accepting that the game is rigged. One might characterize that not so much as Leaning In as gambling.

Lean In is one book by one person, but the reason it's caught on is precisely because it voices so many beliefs that already existed. Just look at the recent article by USD's own Miglenda Sternadori titled “The No Matter What Rule” – not quite as catchy as Lean In, but the concept is essentially the same. Sternadori writes, “Is it unfair for academic mothers to have to work so hard? Yes. Is it worth wasting the time to complain? No. Should we all do whatever it takes to change the system for future academic women? Absolutely.” How the system will change without a few people complaining is unclear, but it seems to have something to do with leaning in no matter what and hoping the women who survive this institutionalized hazing won't require it of those who follow them.

There have been some incredible criticisms of Lean In, but (unsurprisingly), one of the most compelling comes from bell hooks. She writes, “Sandberg’s definition of feminism begins and ends with the notion that it’s all about gender equality within the existing social system. From this perspective, the structures of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy need not be challenged. … The model Sandberg represents is all about how women can participate and “run the world.” But of course the kind of world we would be running is never defined. It sounds at times like benevolent patriarchal imperialism.”

Again, it is assumed that women 'running the world,' or in this case, Facebook, in equal numbers to men is the ultimate feminist goal, regardless of the means to achieve it. Paid work is worthy, domestic work is not. Linda Hirschmann tells us, “People have been discussing what it means to have a good life for thousands of years. The answer, in Western culture, always includes using your talents and capacities to the fullest and reaping the rewards of doing so.” She laments that the lives of women working in the domestic sphere, “do not sound particularly interesting or fulfilling for a complicated, educated person.”

And what happens to children if their parents are both off pursuing their careers? Do they form Lord of the Flies-like baby gangs and fend for themselves? No, unfortunately, someone has to take care of them, and that person is usually a woman, probably a lower income home daycare provider, an older female relative, or a young female childcare center worker. Even if you send your kid to a fancy pre-school where everyone has a degree in early childhood education, because our society puts so little stock in caring for children, they’re probably barely making ends meet.

Degrees in Child & Family Studies, Early Childhood Education, and Child Development rank below majors like Biblical Studies, Studio Art, and Philosophy, among 200 other, when it comes to mid-career wage averages. If one could get a degree in Underwater Basket Weaving, it would no doubt lead to a more lucrative career than anything having to do with the care of young children. Childcare workers make, on average, under $10 an hour, and preschool teachers average closer to $12 (keeping in mind of course that these are national averages -- South Dakotans are rarely making the median anything). The National Childcare Staffing Study noted that dog trainers make a higher average wage than those working in early childhood education, and the wages of fast food cooks have grown at a steadier pace.

These are not self-sufficiency level wages. The study also found relatively high levels a depression and anxiety among childcare workers, in many cases linked to stress and concern about ability to meet basic needs. Most childcare workers with children of their own used at least one form of public assistance. The Center for the Study of Childcare Employment has characterized the current childcare policy as “rely{ing} upon unseen subsidies provided by childcare teachers through their low wages.” Think about that for a second. The career trajectory of a certain class of women (and men, for that matter), their very ability to ‘lean in,’ is being SUBSIDIZED by poorer women.

As a successful child of a number of childcare facilities, I don’t have any problem with daycare, but a system that tells middle and upper class women that they can only be successful if they work outside the home, but relies on a mostly-female child rearing underclass doesn’t sound especially feminist to me. Strategic -- yes. Feminist? No. Is it even a question that the way caretaking and domestic duties are discussed and disparaged, especially by feminist thinkers, has an effect on how people who work in those fields are valued and paid? Wouldn’t a truly egalitarian society value traditionally ‘female’ work so it could be more attractive to men and women of every socio-economic group?

We frequently hear about childcare as a feminist issue, but generally from the standpoint of working parents' ability to afford it. Childcare has huge costs, but the workers make next to nothing. Facebook is free and Sheryl Sandberg probably wears a gold-plated Fit Bit. But that’s part of the problem with capitalism -- the value the marketplace puts on something rarely has any correlation to its importance. Even with something essential like caretaking.

Laurie Penny writes, “Trying to justify feminism on the basis of profit is dangerous because, at its root, feminism is pretty bad for business. Maternity provisions, equal pay, higher taxes to finance a welfare state that supports hard-working mothers -- all of these things cost money and affect returns. … Ensuring that a slightly larger minority of females get to wield power … does next to nothing for the cause of women's liberation, because the real issue is not that women have too little power in business but that business has too much power.”

Assuming for the moment that this is a zero sum game and some goals are prioritized over others, the mainstream feminist movement has chosen to invest the majority of its political capital in getting more women in the boardroom at the expense of the caretakers, rather than risk the result that getting caretakers fair wages might keep women from corporate, political, or academic achievement.

Americans work more than almost anyone in the world. We glorify business and productivity, and what has it gotten us? Wages that have in no way kept pace with the economy, especially among the lowest earners, and increasing demands to do more and more and more to the detriment of other areas of our lives. For the Lean In crowd, often these trade offs are characterized as sacrifices -- sacrifice sleep, sacrifice time with family, sacrifice 'bar hopping' according to The No Matter What Rule (this is a real issue among working moms, to be sure). But is it a sacrifice when you make a decision that is meant to ultimately personally benefit you in money and prestige? I would argue that these decisions are simply prioritizing time -- what we all do every day.

What would true sacrifice for feminist ideals look like? How can we as individuals make a collective sacrifice for the betterment of women and workers generally? What creature comforts and big ambitions would we be willing to sacrifice so our daughters can not only be CEOs and Senators, but well rested CEOs and Senators with hobbies. What would we sacrifices so that our sons can be daycare workers who can also afford to feed their families?

It might mean truly making wage equality a priority – above leaning in, above parity at higher levels. It might mean accepting that if wage increases are achieved before other important gains like government funded or subsidized childcare, it's going to cost us. It also might mean challenging the culture of overwork and productivity head on – refusing to do the extra hours and extra projects and actually using our leave, so the next person down the line feels like they can use theirs.

Doing less is not an easy choice. Bills must be paid, mouths must be fed, and you'll get no sympathy from feminist leaders whose message is, “Do more! Aim higher! The political is the personal and the personal is your job!” But for those leading the way, perhaps trickling down a little less bootstrapping and a little more support for those who need it most could make a difference.

Finally putting a stake through the heart of the Horatio Alger narrative is not easy. Changing systems and entrenched thinking is not easy. Rejecting capitalism in a society based around consumption is not easy. But if Sheryl Sandberg can pretend Lean In is some kind of feminist manifesto, perhaps I can make a futile call to arms myself.

My call to arms is to lean back. Recline. Lay down and take a goddamn nap. Sacrifice the personal enrichment that comes from devoting your life to work so your coworkers and subordinates and the people who come after you can have a life and purpose beyond working harder for less and less.