Bring Home the Bacon--But to What Home?

This morning's Maureen Dowd column in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

A new study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggests that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors.

As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women."

Dowd asks:

So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve, the less desirable they are? Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to -- unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to.

Oh, come on. Men do too want women they can talk to. The problem is, women who are highly ambitious "achievers" aren't around to talk to--they're at work.

I put "achievers" in quotation marks because while ostensibly giving women the right to choose their paths, radical feminism assumes that the only worthwhile path is public achievement. It makes women who choose to "achieve" in the private sphere, or who choose to aim low in the public sphere in order to give more time to private pursuits, feel backward and scorned.

As a Ph.D. who homeschools my kids, I've heard my share of "you're wasting yourself" and "you're betraying the feminist movement" comments. Interestingly enough, the people who say such things (always women, never men) usually add a postscript about my marriage, "And why did you take his last name? If you felt you had to marry him, you should at least have kept your own identity."

Do you see the implication? At its harshest, feminist ideology says you can't give anything of yourself to another person--your husband, your children--without demeaning yourself; and that's simply not true.

Fortunately, I do get positive comments as well (and yes, I've been surprised by how many near-strangers feel free to comment about my personal choices). Many women have thanked me for "making it clear that women who stay home aren't necessarily stupid, lazy, or oppressed."

My favorite remark, though, came from a distinguished professor at large, respected public university who learned that I intended to stay home with my baby. He took me aside, shut the door, and said in a whisper: "I could get in terrible trouble for saying this, but I'll say it anyway: You're making a wise decision."

The feminist movement accomplished many things. I'm certainly glad that I could go to grad school, and that if I needed to support myself I'd be able to do so. I enjoy occasionally teaching a college class, and I'm glad to be paid as much as a man would for doing the same thing.

But something is very wrong when we are reduced to whispering about the importance of family, when men are being castigated for marrying women who prioritize family, when young grad students (like one I spoke with two days ago) are terrified that their colleagues will discover they're homeschooling a learning-disabled child rather than single-mindedly pursuing their academic career.

Maureen Dowd's twisted brand of feminism is, indeed, a cruel and injurious hoax.