She recalls heated discussions with her roommate and friends about their expectations for their adult lives.

"I knew that feminism was a farce all my life," she says. Part of that attitude came from her family, she realizes: "I try to think about contemporaries of mine who didn't have [traditional parents]. If I had a baby-boomer mother, if they had a different position..."

Venker worked outside the home before her kids were born. In that regard, she followed the example of the women in her family: "Phyllis, but really my mother and their mother — my conservative, matriarchal grandmother — everyone had degrees, careers, kids." But not, she's careful to note, at the same time.

Indeed, after Venker had her children, she never considered day care. She was certain that no career outside the home could ever be as important as the one inside it. She even chose what she did — teaching — to allow maximum flexibility and to let her prioritize raising a family.

She's convinced that too many young women fail to plan for motherhood because feminism tells them it's something to be shoehorned in around a career. When the kids actually arrive, young families are in for a shock. And while a hyper-material culture has convinced families that they need two incomes, simple arithmetic takes the wind out of that argument, she says. A second income is mainly gobbled up in child-care and the incidental costs of working anyway.

But even outside the context of motherhood, feminism is a lie.

"Feminists only want the victims in the spotlight," Venker says. The so-called sisterhood, she sniffs, is "empowering for weak people. It's not going to get you forward. It's just banding together and yapping."

Indeed, she says, American women have the easiest, most spoiled existence of any human society ever to walk the earth. There is very little to complain about — thanks to men.

"Women do not owe feminists for their opportunities," she says. "They owe men. It is men who have developed the technology to allow women to pursue other opportunities. All these things we take for granted have freed us to ruminate on our place in the world and have careers. Technology and the Pill came about before the feminist movement — they were made by men. They are the most obvious reasons women have the cushy lives they have today. So how could they be the oppressors?"

Venker says she'd never deny that there are sexists and misogynists out there, but she's convinced they are rare.

"There are all kinds of ways people will dismiss you because of who you are. There are cads, but it's not like you have to sift through them. Sexism happens. There's all kinds of buttheads in the world. There's a more empowering way to face up to the buttheads of the world."

Many of Venker's claims sound awfully familiar to folks who've been following the debate about working mothers for the last five decades. In fact, aside from words like "butthead," she's often speaking from the same script as her mother's sister — the Eagle Forum's 86-year-old founder, Aunt Phyllis.

"Everything you've learned in college is gearing you toward a career in the labor force," Phyllis Schlafly tells Riverfront Times. "There isn't any space for men, marriage or children in the way you've got your life planned. Many young women find they'd really like to get married or have children after all."

It's worth noting that Schlafly herself started a political think tank, ran for office and earned a law degree — and raised six kids. She's said that it was all in the timing; when her children were home, so was she. She might have been a major public figure in the '60s culture wars, but she was Mom first.

"It's a dogma of the feminist movement that there really isn't any difference between men and women, that the differences you think you see are a social construct. The book is a very strong bid to change the conversation and to tell young people what they've been hearing is wrong and not helpful," Schlafly says.

Schlafly and Venker aren't all that close even today. Schlafly says that she and Venker are busy with their own lives. They mainly keep in touch over e-mail. But they're definitely on the same page philosophically.

"Look at the feminists," says Schlafly. "Most of them are unhappy."


As long as there have been feminists, of course, there have been anti-feminists: Even as feminists have argued that women should have the right to choose a life outside the home, anti-feminists have struck back, saying that choice is the downfall of civilization. And though it might be tempting to anyone dreaming of "sisterhood" to think of women as feminists and men as their opponents in this discussion, that's simply not the case: For every Betty Friedan, there's been a Phyllis Schlafly.

When it comes to individual women and their choices, it's even more complicated. Plenty of liberal women—feminists, even—are torn on what's best. In 2003, Lisa Belkin wrote an endlessly discussed (and blogged about) article for the New York Times Magazine, "The Opt-Out Revolution." In it, Belkin explored the phenomenon of highly educated and formerly career-focused women who drop out of the rat race to stay home with their children.

« Previous Page
 |
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
184 comments
LMA
LMA

"My kids are gonna marry your kids. We're all in it together." I pray to the good Lord above that this IS NOT the case! Seems to me that Mrs. Venker's all for you as long as your life choices mirror hers. She believes that motherhood and being at home with the children are BIOLOGICAL laws, which is a non-starter that makes any dissenting opinion, in her eyes, useless.

pguo23
pguo23

vipshopper.us Cheapest Air Jordam Shoes,Tiffany Jewelry Company,Wholesale Hollister Clothing

Olivia
Olivia

What about women who can't have children?

Cinstlu
Cinstlu

I have worked and stayed home with my kids. There are so many reasons for doing both, but I think women need to be smart and understand the obligations that come with having a child. The thing is that it's not the sort of obligation that is a weight on the shoulders of your life, it's one that if you have kids for the right reasons you simply want to do.

My mom believed in home and marriage, but her RN degree was all that kept us from being in the streets when my father's mental health issues caused him to abandon us when my twin sister and I were 3. She did what she had to do. There are many situations like this that happens.

She was just smart in taking jobs that gave her as much time with us as possible. Not the top paying jobs, the jobs that made the most sense for the overall welfare of our family.

I am a stay at home mom and we don't have many luxuries in life, but my son is tended to and it's so much better than the years when I did work as he's been growing up. I see my son not only as an obligation but it's a pleasure to be his mom. It's the way it's suppose to be and I'm grateful for having a husband who supports me just doing what I need to for my son to have what he needs from me. I use my social work degree every single day just in being the mom he needs. Knowledge is never wasted.

But if my husband would die,was laid off and could not find another job, I found he was cheating it's good to have that college degree still. I would still be a good mom working or not.

Jsmuhl
Jsmuhl

Maybe the author needs to understand that the majority of the working world is women. She needs to look at finances of married couples. If the bread winner is making minimum wage or maybe a little above, it takes two incomes to support a family. The real world is the cost of supporting a family with just housing, food, clothes and nothing fancy, is two jobs. Sure, it would be lovely to be able to stay home and not have to go out and freeze the butt in the Winter to go to work. I was able to do that for a couple of years, but when my late husband became ill and disabled, I had to go to work. The author lives in a fantasy world, I am afraid.

Kheilman
Kheilman

Oh the "victim" card? Its such a great tool of Conservatives to call other people victims then accuse those victims of declairing war on their ideals. Priceless. Its also interesting that this woman has a "job" but tells others, to be stay at home moms.

Know what I'm talkin' about
Know what I'm talkin' about

I agree that one parent should stay home to raise the kids - way too many screwed up kids since both parents started working out of the home. However, today more than ever, the father is many times able and often the more nurturing parent. I know several moms that can't handle the slightest childrearing issues; can't manage more than one thing at a time; can't even take a shower without having someone (mom) come over to watch the infant. Raising kids is very challenging and I praise those parents that stay home and do their primary job. Let dad (or mom) be the stay at home parent and have happier, well adjusted kids!

Jim!?
Jim!?

Somewhere in the article she talks about how feminists band together and yap, even though all she is doing is yapping. And now an irrelevant quote: "Your nose is broken."-Burgess Meredith, From the motion picture "Rocky"

Ruth
Ruth

Go Suzanne! You are the voice of so many people who agree but are afraid to say so. Most of these comments are from people who just don't get it. They probably didn't even read the article. You go, girl!!

Schillbabe
Schillbabe

What, exactly, are we not getting? Not agreeing and not understanding are two very different things.

Schillbabe
Schillbabe

Look, for every personal anecdote you can point to where a woman was sad to go back to work and use child care and I can point to any number of friends who, although it was hard to leave their children in day care, were practically turning cartwheels to go back to a job they enjoyed and leave the tedium of childrearing behind. The fact is, no one can prepare moms (or dads for that matter) for the intense emotions they will feel when they have a child. However, to assume that all moms experience the same emotions is just silly. Some feel fulfilled looking at a little baby and know they want to be at home with that little person and some feel trapped. I stayed home, but there were definitely times when I felt depressed and isolated. My solution was to throw myself into becoming Martha Stewart to alleviate the boredom. And when one of my best friends had a 15 hour/week, part time job fall in her lap and had enough family support that she didn't have to pay for day care, I'll admit I was pretty damn jealous. I love my family, and I was raised in a traditional nuclear family, but childrearing and being a housewife certainly didn't fulfill my every need.

For the author of this article to retroactively blame feminism for what was essentially an economic decision and to extrapolate that point of view into some kind of condemnation of feminism and working women is strange. The decision of whether to work or stay home involves, for most women, a hard look at what threshold of economic and personal sacrifice they are willing to make. It was tough staying home (I drove an old car, I live in a small, 80 year old house, we still don't take big vacations, but we do pay for private school), but in our family it was what we decided was best. I know women who stay home who make less drastic sacrifices and women who make far bigger sacrifices. I can't judge their decisions because they are hopefully doing what maximizes their happiness and the happiness of their families in any given situation.

Common sense tells us that the idea of "having it all" has no basis in reality --real life is made up of a series of compromises and sacrifice and hard decisions. But for anyone to assume that the definition of "it all" is the same for any two people is incredibly short sighted. And to condemn the university system as somehow being agents of the feminists agenda is just plain stupid. The whole point of higher education is to hopefully maximize one's economic potential --otherwise, why make the investment of time and money in the first place? And I would further argue that it is primarily highly educated, middle and upper class women who have the luxury of opting out of the workforce to raise children with the knowledge that they have to skills to rejoin the workforst at some later time if they so choose. And this luxury is afforded to us by the very university system which is supposedly corrupting the minds of young women.

Meganbetz
Meganbetz

An interesting personal opinion, but it doesn't address anything factual as it only uses you as a reference. I'm glad people have rallied for your book and given you sales, but I don't believe that the link supports the idea that feminism is "false". Also, who compared the struggle of housewives (as largely middle class, white women served as the face of women's lib.) to slavery? I want to know where the author got that, as no feminist theory/theorist I've read made that comparison. We're either putting words in the mouths of feminists, which is offensive to feminists AND Blacks, or drawing from unreliable sources.

Suzanne Venker
Suzanne Venker

I didn't post it to prove anything. I posted it bc it's a perspective different from the one offered on these pages.

And you're mistaken: feminists absolutely compared (and are still comparing) the feminist movement to the civil rights movement. That's in part how they were able to garner so much support.

That's interesting logic you just used. You said you want to know "where I got that," but then suggest that even if I prove my point I'm either lying or using "unreliable sources."

Meganbetz
Meganbetz

I'm not arguing that it isn't a related fight for civil rights, but the article says "suppression of women in America comparable to pre-Civil War oppression." Pre-civil war oppression is slavery, not the civil rights movement. That's why I'm questioning the comment and it's source. I don't want to you where YOU got that, but where the author of the article got that statement.

Meganbetz
Meganbetz

"(Most) careers just don't mix," but writing is okay because all philosophies serve to justify what we want most from our own lives. I want to clarify a feminist principle that Venker is living out: Women have choice. Feminism was not intended to be radical or anti-man. It was intended to show that EACH gender has a CHOICE in what role they play--in marriage and outside of it, in larger society. Feminism is the idea that we are each individual, and that we have to define what our own worth is. "Well then why is it FEMinism?" Good question: Because it was an even largely patriarchy then. Not due to values, but do to the habit UNDER-valueing women (refusing to let them vote, earn fair wages for equal work, have a credit card). As a writer, I wonder what Venker would feel reading Woolf's "A Room of One's One."

Meganbetz
Meganbetz

...and by "One's ONE" I meant "One's OWN".

Suzanne Venker
Suzanne Venker

Hello to Everyone,

I feel compelled to point out for those who don't realize it: I don't create headlines, nor am I responsible for how reporters interpret my words. I did not say, for example, that "working mothers" are destroying America. Nor did I say women "belong at home" while men "belong in the rat race." I thought Melissa Meinzer did an excellent job overall, but that particular statement is an overstatement of a very complex argument.

Women can certainly have it all (work and family) if they so desire -- I do, as many of you point out -- but not in full-blown mode, all at the same time. Multitasking (like the concept of "quality time") is a lie. There's a great book called The Myth of Multitasking that I highly recommend.

More importantly, the inherent conflict bw children and careers is not something for which men or society is to blame -- it just is. Feminism, however, is built on exactly this premise and Flipside points out the fallacy of that argument. And by the way, Flipside is about much more than just children vs. career!

Suzanne Venker

Schillbabe
Schillbabe

I guess I don't understand your assertion that first-, second-, and third-wave feminism is built on victimology. How is it any different from the Civil Rights movement seeing injustice and working to overcome it? We just read a section of Paymore "The Angel in the House" in a graduate Victorian Novel class I am taking and I was struck by the similarities between that work (women's natural place is in the home, taking care of domestic matters first) and arguments still going on today about women's role in society.

Suzanne Venker
Suzanne Venker

While I would genuinely like to answer this question, it's just too big for the Internet. One of the reasons we authors write books is bc it's impossible to delve into heavy subjects like this one in an article, speech, or even a TV spot. Books allow questions like yours to be answered in full, and I'm always shocked (not directing this at you personally) at how few people take the time to read.

People seem to want quick answers and there just isn't a quick answer to this type of question. For example, in the first third of the book I discuss the parallel bw the civil rights movement and the feminist movement. They are not one in the same -- indeed, it's insulting to black Americans for feminists to suggest otherwise -- but that's exactly what feminists do on college campuses across America. I would encourage you to go to Amazon and buy Flipside or the Kindle version and I'd be happy to talk with you afterward. If you go to my website -- www.suzannevenker.com -- my contact info is there.

One final note: Melissa Meinzer actually read both books and came away, I believe, with a very different perspective than the one commenters seem to have from reading this article. Those who are truly interested in different perspectives read books; those who want to stay in comfortable boxes and absorb only what's taught to them by the culture tend not to be readers. As these comments demonstrate, they're too busy being offended to think clearly.

Suzanne Venkerwww.suzannevenker.com

Schillbabe
Schillbabe

Your response is patently offensive, @Anonymous. Mrs. Venker is expressing her beliefs and she's certainly not the only person taking stock of the feminist movement in today's media. Your personal attack makes you look incapable of civilized debate. They're only ideas for goodness sake!

anonymous
anonymous

phyllis schafly's niece, who writes anti-feminist screeds published by worldnetdaily, is now lecturing on "different perspectives"?

fuck you, cunt

Schillbabe
Schillbabe

I'm in the middle of juggling young kids on summer break and an 8 week Victorian Novel class, so there's no chance of reading your books until later in the summer :-) However, since feminism being a cult of victimization is one of your central premises for your argument, I thought you might be able to briefly speak to it (while I totally understand if you can't do it briefly). And please don't assume that I'm rejecting everything you argue outright --I too was a full time mom while my kids were young and have only recently taken up teaching as an adjunct so I can work around their schedule. However, I never felt pressured one way or the other by society, feminists (which I count myself as), or social conservatives, etc. with regard to my childrearing decision; my staying home was simply the best decision for *us*, but I know plenty of successful mothers in both the working and stay-at-home realms.

Kim Palmier
Kim Palmier

I would have to say, I would consider you to be a working mom as well as the majority of the female population. As an author, you are writing, publishing, and marketing your literature. Those tasks requires time, attention to detail, and public contact, all in which can easily qualify as "working". Most of us work for financial survival, for ourselves and our families. Unfortunately, all "suburban" households are not comprised of two parents. I would have to disagree that your argument families are broken because the mother works. Many single parent households can and have raised well balanced and successful offspring. I personally take pride in the extra time I have daily with my children. The time is limited but is of quality, versus the quantity of time I may have without a full time working schedule.

I would also have to disagree with your ideology that feminism is that of a victim than that of individuality and success. Early demonstrations of Feminism has led the path for the success that many females achieve in today's job market. If it weren't for Feminism, our traditional role of "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" or however that may go would still be the social norm. Especially not to mention, if the steps weren't taken by the earliest of Feminists, women would most likely have to right to vote today.

In conclusion, working women, rather in the home, or outside the home contribute to and continue shaping the pathways for the success of young women in their future endeavors.

Shanny7822
Shanny7822

Ok. I know this is entirely off topic... but chicken thawing on the counter next to carrots is disgusting....Salmonella just waiting to happen

MarcB
MarcB

Brave, brave, brave...... No one every mentions God's plan for men and women. That of raising and having a loving family where joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith are taught.Along with teaching that the following should not be part of our life. These are anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, quilt, resentment inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority and ego. The majority of people have lost their sense of good and evil, and direction to God.

anonymous
anonymous

yeah, another brave white christian

you people have it so rough in america

Husband
Husband

yet.....another insightful moment brought to us by anonymous. anonymous....actually I posted this for someone who is not computer savvy and wanted to voice an opinion. But in your fascist world you would line everyone up who disagreed with you. Ironically that person's generation fought fascism so you would be here today to make your ridiculous statements. Way to go big guy. Oh....I did not see anything about christianity in that person's comments--only God.

anonymous
anonymous

an old person can't use a computer--no irony there

stepfordwife_dot_com
stepfordwife_dot_com

I suspect the invocation of the two words "Phyllis Schlafly" will send most feminists into paroxysms of ERA knee jerk fury. While many will say "who is Venker to tell us how to behave?!"

But that is exactly what so many feminists have been saying to homemakers and stay-at-home moms for so many years. It's a testament that instead of reacting to another woman who has made a successful home with a husband and kids with joy and goodwill, there is venom and bitterness that here is someone who was able to pull it off. Comments like "just wait until her husband dumps her, etc etc...." Where is the sisterhood? I'm sure this is not what the first wave suffragists had in mind.

I feel bad for the moms who need to go out and work to support the family. At the same time, I believe that given a choice, if we could afford to stay at home and raise our families, we would. Sometimes the line between jealousy and outrage is blurred.

But, she did say that "men and women aren't equal, but we're equal in worth." That is a positive message that many feminists, in their quest for absolute equality can't seem to accept.

Schillbabe
Schillbabe

I was raised by a stay at home mom who never went back to work, even after the children left. And yet, I consider my mother every inch a feminist. I don't know who these evil "feminists" you speak of are or where and when they are "telling" homemakers they are not good enough. I've stayed home full time in the past and I'm currently working part time, and I've honestly never had anyone walk up to me and judge me on that basis. I think the key here is choice and to me that was what the feminist movement was all about.

Some women are just happier in the workplace and some women are happier at home, and hopefully they will get to do what makes them happiest at any given time in their lives. But I just don't see the "evil" feminists and "liberal" university system brainwashing women into thinking they can and must have it "all" (whatever that means). In all my years or undergraduate and graduate studies, I never once remember being told that I must work even if I have children or that family is less important than career.

I think it is wrong and short-sighted to look at two income families (even where one spouse could potentially afford to stay) and sniff and say they aren't willing to sacrifice for their children. There are always sacrifices made when a couple has children, even if they aren't obvious at first glance. The fact is that not every woman is cut out to be a full time mom and not every man is cut out to be the sole provider for his family. And as soon as we start imposing these arbitrary lines in the sand (feminists vs. traditional women, liberal vs. conservative, left vs. right), we're all setting ourselves up to fail.

It is beyond me why anyone, regardless of their ideology, would really care what Suzanne Venker, Betty Friedan, or any other person who doesn't know them thinks they should do. I hope every young couple out there has the ability to think about what will work best for their individual family and not get caught up in all the culture war b.s.

As far as Venker's claim that "Men and women aren't equal, but we're equal in worth" goes, it sounds to me like she was just trying to come up with an edgy blurb for the dust cover. What a pointless comment.

Choadstool
Choadstool

I agree that parental involvement is important in shaping children. I'd say that parents taking time to teach and interact with their child is often preferable to daycare. However, I believe that either--preferably both--parents should spend quality time with their children, not just women, and that feminists and working women are hardly the the bane of civilization.

CatholicWorkingMom
CatholicWorkingMom

I HATE people like her. Fine stay home and raise your kids. However, get off your high horse. Also, do not even get me started on some of the kids I know that are on my street that have stay at home moms. I will not let my kids associate with them and yes my dears went to childcare full time. Kindergarten teacher even commented on how polite and well mannered and well adjusted and happy my kid was:) Last but not least please do not even think about being Catholic or ever converting.. that is my religion and you give it a BAD name.

Klewis
Klewis

Raising children is a job. And the younger the children are, the more intense their need for their mother. Her approach is good. My boss was a native Missourian, and these are the values reflected in his life. He could have advanced further in the corporate hierarchy, but he and his wife decided family came first. This is the same story of a lady I know whose husband worked at Boeing. They only had one child and he could have advanced at Boeing, but they decided to focus on their family rather than on climbing the corporate ladder.

Schillbabe
Schillbabe

My dad was a McDonnell Douglas/Boeing guy and he made the same sort of career sacrifices (not taking the family overseas to Saudi being the major one at that time). And my stay at home mother definitely made all sorts of sacrifices, because I'm sure she would have liked a nicer house, nicer cars, nicer vacations, etc., although I never remember her complaining. However, I do remember one of my dad's sisters kind of sniping at my mom for not going back to work when we were older, just as I'm sure this same aunt would have complained had my mom decided to stick with her successful career after she had her children and used a babysitter for us. My point here is that no matter what decisions couples make, there is always sacrifice involved in raising children, even if it's not apparent at first glance. And, when we're all standing around judging each other (which Ms. Venker claims is her perogative because her son may eventually marry my daughter --shudder the thought-- or some other convoluted b.s.) no one wins. I don't see where it is helpful at all for the Suzanne Venkers of the world to tell everyone else how to achieve a happy and harmonious home life. Everyone can figure it out on their own.

Alzari
Alzari

I agree 100%. Feminism destroyed America and liberals are trying to finish it off. Even Europeans know feminism is bullshit that's why they never followed America into the abyss.

baguio23
baguio23

Europeans obviously know more than you, instead subsidize day care so women can work if they have to or want to.

Schillbabe
Schillbabe

What is your proof for this rather broad and all inclusive statement? I teach composition and rhetoric and one of the biggest rules for creating an effective argument is to avoid blanket statements.

Anne_mcquire
Anne_mcquire

Well, I think Suzanne Venker is a failure as a stay-at-home mom. She only has two children, instead of a quiver-full. Why doesn't she have seven or eight? Since her children go to school all day, what does she do with her time, besides sit on the Internet and write books? Where is her garden? How many jars of green beans and pickles does she put up after each harvest? She should be making her children's clothes. And instead of living in a suburb, if she were really serious about being a stay-at-home mom, she would live someplace where she could raise chickens, rabbits, bees, or even goats.

That's pretty nasty, isn't it? Does it sting a little bit, Ms. Venker, when someone lays a whole heap of unjustified judgment on you, making remarks about your personal decisions, and getting all up in your business? The judgmentalism in my first paragraph is exactly what you are doing in reference to mothers who work. It's exactly what you are directing towards people who have life choices different from yours.

And yeah, it's ugly. And no one should be subjected to it.

Schillbabe
Schillbabe

I was home with my kids for seven years and I'm glad I had the opportunity to stay home with them. We had planned on my doing that after we had children, bought a less expensive house in the City to make it easier, etc. That is not to say I always enjoyed it, though. And I completely understand why some women prefer to work --not everyone is cut out for the housewife gig. Once my kids were back in school I did go back to work part time and I'm lucky enough to be able to work around their school schedule for the most part. I enjoy working because it lets me feel like I have something that belongs to only me. One observation I have is that it seems like in today's economy, a stay-at-home mom/wife is a major status symbol, so all the talk of foregoing status symbols in order to stay home seems a little ironic. And the second observation I have is that feminism, to me, isn't founded on a culture of vicitimization, although women throughout the years have been treated quite unfairly in the workplace, etc. To me, feminism was based on the idea that women should have the freedom to decide what they want to do without all the judgment. It really doesn't look like we're there yet, though.

Teddy
Teddy

It's all well and good when women have the luxury to raise their own kids. And the choice to work or stay at home is a luxury. Mrs. Venker seems to ignore the thousands of women and couples who don't get to make that decision. This is a moot debate when so many people could use assistance instead of criticism.

Ideaddict
Ideaddict

So Women should stay out of the workforce and devote the entirety of their energy to child rearing, cleaning, cooking, and sexually pleasing their husbands? How does Venker squeeze in writing novels, doing promotions and book signings, and media spots like this article into her busy schedule? And isn't it morally and biologically wrong that she is distracting us women from our household duties to read her article? Venker is a hypocrite complete with her own office. What kind of traditional mother has her own office?

Guest
Guest

Regrettably, working moms bought into the seductive lie perpetuated for years by the media:"You CAN Have It All."Working moms (who did not have to work to make ends meet) have unknowingly destroyed the nuclear family single-handedly, to say nothing about how many have destroyed the egos of their husbands by displacing them as the head of the household and family bread-winners.

The gap in life expectancy between men and women will soon disappear. Working women have begun falling victim to increased stress and confusion about their familial roles, as some of the smarter ones have finally realized they will never feel the wholeness of the "Greatest Generation." No....not MY generation--that of my father and mother, God rest their souls, this Memorial Holiday.

L B
L B

So she doesn't see writing as working? Just by publishing a book, spending time on writing it, and raking in the money from it shows she is a hypocrite. She is a "working mother" as well. Shows how people don't think before they shout about what is wrong.

Wjvenker
Wjvenker

LB, when something is of value you work around your children's schedule and make it happen. I know it is a tough word to understand but sacrifice means giving up. You (and many others) make sweeping judgement calls without any personal knowledge and I find that very ironic.

 
Loading...