What do you think?
Rate this book
Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World
When Linda R. Hirshman published an article called “Homeward Bound” in last December’s American Prospect, she fully intended to reignite the dying embers of feminism’s fire. But the ensuing maelstrom of criticism and applause from national op-ed columnists like David Brooks in The New York Times to mothers—stay-at-home and working mothers alike— surprised even her. Suddenly, the retired professor of philosophy and women’s studies is at the center of an increasingly hot debate on sexual politics. With Get to Work, Hirshman expands her now-infamous call for all women to realize the ideal of economic independence and self-determination.
Examining the trend of affluent, educated women abandoning their careers in order to raise children, Hirshman has concluded that the real glass ceiling that’s barring women from success in the workplace is in their own homes. Why, forty years after The Feminine Mystique, do men and women assign the low-level and generally unrewarding jobs of housekeeping and child rearing to women? The time is ripe for a new feminist revolution based on values and quality of life, not some false promise of “choice.” Get to Work will lead the national discussion as Hirshman lays out a strategic plan to help women rediscover that their place is not necessarily in the kitchen.
112 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
6 people are currently reading
734 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews
September 17, 2007
Linda Hirshman is VERY direct and this will not sit well for all readers, especially if you don't agree with her premise. I found the book refreshing because I think the feminist movement is in need of radical transformation and the most effective arena to do so is in the world of work.
As a working mother, I felt affirmed by her message that women need to abdandon the illusions of "choice feminism" and claim their place in the work world, especially in leadership positions where we can make policy (including policies about work/life balance). This book inspired me to think beyond my middle management position and explore ways that I can have an impact on policy in my agency and in my field.
As with all books about being a mother, I wish she had incorporated more about the need for fathers to step up and contribute euqally as parents, so that the question isn't "should mom stay at home with the kids or go to work?", but instead "how can a mother and father best equalize the time spent in careers and the time fulfilling their parenting responsibilities?". I know by posing these questions I am excluding single parents, but wouldn't we have more dialogue about gender roles and supportive policies for ALL parents (single and partnered) if we had more women in leadership positions?
I wish Linda Hirshman could have toned her book down a decibal or two because I fear that her aggressive manner is preventing many people from hearing her core message. I urge anyone who is thinking of reading this book to do so and give her a chance. If anything, she will challenge your thinking.
As a working mother, I felt affirmed by her message that women need to abdandon the illusions of "choice feminism" and claim their place in the work world, especially in leadership positions where we can make policy (including policies about work/life balance). This book inspired me to think beyond my middle management position and explore ways that I can have an impact on policy in my agency and in my field.
As with all books about being a mother, I wish she had incorporated more about the need for fathers to step up and contribute euqally as parents, so that the question isn't "should mom stay at home with the kids or go to work?", but instead "how can a mother and father best equalize the time spent in careers and the time fulfilling their parenting responsibilities?". I know by posing these questions I am excluding single parents, but wouldn't we have more dialogue about gender roles and supportive policies for ALL parents (single and partnered) if we had more women in leadership positions?
I wish Linda Hirshman could have toned her book down a decibal or two because I fear that her aggressive manner is preventing many people from hearing her core message. I urge anyone who is thinking of reading this book to do so and give her a chance. If anything, she will challenge your thinking.
July 9, 2007
I agree wholeheartedly that if inequitable households are preventing a parent returning to work then that poor division of labour must be addressed.
However, I feel that the author's assertion that the only flourishing life can be found in the high powered workplace to be limited and lacking in imagination.She had no real perspective on how many people's lives operate. Very few of us are likely to be Mozart, Einstein, MLK, Condie etc.(Her list, not mine). The reality is that work serves the purpose of putting food on the table and a roof over our heads. The vast majority of working women and men go to work for that reason and are fortunte indeed if they attain a high level of satisfaction and fulfillment.
Every one of us is unique and what one may find restrictive another may indeed flourish. Anyone can push a vacuum around (physical capacities a given) , what is important is what is happening in the mind, the brain, the thoughts and analysis that can happen at times when our bodies ,though busy, our brains are free to range.And is the paid workplace free of mind numbing tasks?
As an argumentative text I found it poorly written and at times incoherent.Her solutions were not that........God forbid that anyone should enjoy having children so much that they have another one.
At one stage she states that Betty Friedan, when writing The Second Stage had...."lost her edge". The book was "full of useless, grandiose, and wishful rhetoric."
My response to that ......sounds familiar.The same can be said of Get To Work.
However, I feel that the author's assertion that the only flourishing life can be found in the high powered workplace to be limited and lacking in imagination.She had no real perspective on how many people's lives operate. Very few of us are likely to be Mozart, Einstein, MLK, Condie etc.(Her list, not mine). The reality is that work serves the purpose of putting food on the table and a roof over our heads. The vast majority of working women and men go to work for that reason and are fortunte indeed if they attain a high level of satisfaction and fulfillment.
Every one of us is unique and what one may find restrictive another may indeed flourish. Anyone can push a vacuum around (physical capacities a given) , what is important is what is happening in the mind, the brain, the thoughts and analysis that can happen at times when our bodies ,though busy, our brains are free to range.And is the paid workplace free of mind numbing tasks?
As an argumentative text I found it poorly written and at times incoherent.Her solutions were not that........God forbid that anyone should enjoy having children so much that they have another one.
At one stage she states that Betty Friedan, when writing The Second Stage had...."lost her edge". The book was "full of useless, grandiose, and wishful rhetoric."
My response to that ......sounds familiar.The same can be said of Get To Work.
April 15, 2013
In “Get to Work,” Linda Hirshman argues - in a tone that fluctuates between starkly sensible and harshly snarky - that stay-at-home motherhood “is not good for women and it’s not good for the society.” She goes further than Jessica Valenti (whose arguments I now realize largely recap Hirshman’s) in declaring that (1) “[c]hild care and housekeeping have satisfying moments but are not occupations likely to produce a flourishing life,” and (2) “[h]ighly educated women’s abandonment of the workplace is . . . a sex-specific brain drain from the future rulers of our society.” While it is tempting to rage against Hirshman and her “plan to break through the glass ceiling at home,” both critiques merit reasoned discussion.
In order to address Hirshman’s aggressive statement that “[b]y any measure, a life of housework and child care does not meet . . . standards for a good human life” and the implication that women who choose to stay-at-home with their children use not “their wits and their brains, [but rather] their . . . reproductive organs” - we have to examine Hirshman’s gender-neutral understanding of what it means to do important work and what it means to parent. Taking a decidedly pro-capitalist (as in, the market’s valuation reigns supreme), work-til’-you-drop stance for all, she declares that people who say “[they’ve n]ever met someone dying who wished they’d had more time at work” are foolish. Hirshman venerates big impact phenoms (e.g., Mozart, Bill Clinton, and anyone working in cancer research) while denigrating direct service providers (like music teachers, local politicians, or clinical physicians). In other words, she fixates on money, power, and prodigy to the exclusion of other indicators of “a good human life.”
Hirshman also criticizes “[t]he new, hyperdomesticated family,” writing that those who work “sixty to seventy-five hour weeks” can parent just as well as those who don’t. After all, according to her, “[a]lthough child rearing, unlike housework, is important and can be difficult, it does not take well-developed political skills to rule over creatures smaller than you are, weaker than you are, and completely dependent upon you for survival and thriving.” To “rule over”? I guess not. To guide and educate? You betcha; stay-at-home mothering has required much sophisticated politicking as well as other newly acquired intrapersonal and interpersonal skills. Suffice it to say, Hirshman and I have different standards regarding both personal fulfillment and effective parenting.
As for the specifics of her arguments, in my response to Valenti’s book (http://readymommy.wordpress.com/2013/...) I largely addressed Hirshman’s first point - that “a life of housework and child care does not meet . . . standards for a good human life” - with the response that it might not always, but it can. While some women may not be well-suited for childcare, others are “using [their] talents and capacities to the fullest and reaping the rewards of doing so” by staying at home with their children, thanks to the many different types of intelligence (Mozart’s great, but we need teachers too) and particularly if they ultimately return to the workforce (full-time childcare builds skills that reap reward in professional sectors).
Moreover, what it means to be a stay-at-home parent is very different for some than others. On the home front, as Hirshman writes, “Men are not natural villains, but they will not make a fair deal . . . unless women stand up and ask for one.” More of us need to do that (see http://joiedeviv.wordpress.com/2011/0... for my thoughts on the topic). Even when only dealing with their fair share of housework and childcare, Hirshman is right to question whether too many stay-at-home mothers live a life of drudgery and solitude. I largely refuse to “perform[ housework] in isolation,” preferring to invite other parents over on laundry days so that I can fold while we chat or to involve my kids in laundry “games” that are both educational and fun (e.g., sock matching as an exercise in pattern recognition and spatial reasoning). I connect with the larger community in a multitude of ways (in person and in writing) that use my “capacities for speech and reason” and constitute “engaging in political life with other adults[,] having social . . . independence[, and] giving . . . to the society” (also described in my response to Valenti). I demand flexibility from my husband, budget, kids, and community to pursue my own interests so that I remain a fulfilled woman as well as a wife and mother. Many stay-at-home parents - myself included - can do more to get out of the house, help others, enlist assistance in return, and generally engage more broadly so as to lead flourishing lives.
We can help them do so. Hirshman is correct that “women have squeezed as much out of their days as they can without more help.” Let’s get them more help. Hirshman rejects public child care, paid housework, and other suggestions meant to enable women to work happily outside the marketplace as solutions that “involve wishful thinking about changing a deeply conservative culture and politics.” Instead, her “strategic plan to get to work” includes the following: “Don’t study art. Use your education to prepare for a lifetime of work. Never quit a job until you have another one. Take work seriously. Never know when you’re out of milk. Bargain relentlessly for a just household. Consider a reproductive strike. Get the government you deserve. Stop electing governments that punish women’s work” (i.e., abolish “joint marital [tax] filing”). In other words, work in a highly paid profession and have fewer kids. Once again, I hear a feminist asking women to shoehorn their own values and desires into the glass slipper offered up by society. At the risk of drawing fire for misremembering my history, perhaps she is the Booker T. Washington - urging the oppressed to work and rise within the system - while the “opt-outers” are W.E.B. Du Bois saying we won’t take the seventy-five hour weeks (that keep us from interacting with our children as much as we’d like) or the woefully insufficient part-time options.
Hirshman makes one argument regarding stay-at-home parents’ long-term happiness that gives me pause. It is one from economic independence: “your ‘choosing’ to shoulder the household at the expense of your market employment means you will be disempowered at divorce.” I personally put my faith in my husband and the law (a.k.a., both varieties of spousal support). I refuse to live my life preparing for a doomsday scenario where both abandon me. I’m also comforted by my desire to return to the workforce no later than when my youngest begins kindergarten. Each stay-at-home parent ought to mull over her/his own degree of economic dependence and plan accordingly, and policymakers should monitor the development of the law to ensure that a non-working parent's contributions over the course of a marriage are fully valued and remunerated upon divorce.
Finally, there’s the contention that strikes the deepest chord with me: even if an individual stay-at-home mother lives a fulfilling life, she is morally irresponsible. According to Hirshman, only working women “giv[e] more to the society than they take.” Those “who drop out of the public world demonstrate a singular indifference to the larger society . . . . [W]hen the[y] . . . do some volunteer work, it [i]s almost always at their children’s schools or at churches . . . . [T]he social good is concentrated only in a narrow, familial world.” I happen to believe that we should get more stay-at-home moms involved in volunteering and provide institutional support for the community strengthening they already do. Let’s also work on social and economic integration so that volunteering close to home doesn’t mean only serving those who look, act, and live like ourselves. But how anyone can discount the power and importance of grassroots efforts after Obama’s election is beyond me.
As for the second prong of the moral responsibility argument, Hirshman writes: “The abandonment of the public world by women at the top means the ruling class is overwhelmingly male. . . . The stay-at-home behavior also . . . tarnishes every female with the knowledge that she is almost certainly not going to be a ruler.” In other words, it’s less the brain-drain that’s the problem and more the sex-specificity of it. If I believe that stay-at-home parenthood is a personally and societally beneficial institution that fits some personalities and skill-sets better than others and can be improved with institutional and communal support, how do we get more men to do it? Get more SAHM’s to serve as examples of market “rulers”? After mulling it over briefly, I find myself turning to one of those ideas that “involve[s] wishful thinking about changing a deeply conservative culture and politics.” Hirshman says that women like myself who plan to parent full-time as a sabbatical of sorts and think they can then return to professional life and achieve great things are kidding themselves; they’ll never go back, and those who do will have lost too much ground to get the “ruler” positions. Here we have a bit of a cart and horse problem. If we alter the marketplace so that opt-outers returning to work can ultimately assume positions of power, maybe more of them will do so. If we count days or years at home as job development (something like a stint at the local DA’s office would be for a big firm lawyer or a year writing in the countryside would be for an English professor) and give both mothers and fathers who have worked “in-house” for a few years a fighting chance, practically and culturally, maybe more men will choose it. Once again, Hirshman has a fair point - though not one that should be wielded at women like a cattle prod, herding us back to the market.
In “Get to Work,” Hirshman is right to ask probing questions about the institution of stay-at-home motherhood, and I am grateful for the opportunity to think deeply about my chosen occupation. What I don’t appreciate is (1) her wholesale rejection of the institution and the women who choose it, rather than a willingness to look at reform, and (2) the current of judgmental nastiness (like calling Naomi Wolf a “so-called feminist”) that underlies much of her book. We do need to “get to work”; we need to get to work on the twin necessities of cultural and institutional change that will address Hirshman’s valid concerns - and to pay no heed to the rest of what she says.
In order to address Hirshman’s aggressive statement that “[b]y any measure, a life of housework and child care does not meet . . . standards for a good human life” and the implication that women who choose to stay-at-home with their children use not “their wits and their brains, [but rather] their . . . reproductive organs” - we have to examine Hirshman’s gender-neutral understanding of what it means to do important work and what it means to parent. Taking a decidedly pro-capitalist (as in, the market’s valuation reigns supreme), work-til’-you-drop stance for all, she declares that people who say “[they’ve n]ever met someone dying who wished they’d had more time at work” are foolish. Hirshman venerates big impact phenoms (e.g., Mozart, Bill Clinton, and anyone working in cancer research) while denigrating direct service providers (like music teachers, local politicians, or clinical physicians). In other words, she fixates on money, power, and prodigy to the exclusion of other indicators of “a good human life.”
Hirshman also criticizes “[t]he new, hyperdomesticated family,” writing that those who work “sixty to seventy-five hour weeks” can parent just as well as those who don’t. After all, according to her, “[a]lthough child rearing, unlike housework, is important and can be difficult, it does not take well-developed political skills to rule over creatures smaller than you are, weaker than you are, and completely dependent upon you for survival and thriving.” To “rule over”? I guess not. To guide and educate? You betcha; stay-at-home mothering has required much sophisticated politicking as well as other newly acquired intrapersonal and interpersonal skills. Suffice it to say, Hirshman and I have different standards regarding both personal fulfillment and effective parenting.
As for the specifics of her arguments, in my response to Valenti’s book (http://readymommy.wordpress.com/2013/...) I largely addressed Hirshman’s first point - that “a life of housework and child care does not meet . . . standards for a good human life” - with the response that it might not always, but it can. While some women may not be well-suited for childcare, others are “using [their] talents and capacities to the fullest and reaping the rewards of doing so” by staying at home with their children, thanks to the many different types of intelligence (Mozart’s great, but we need teachers too) and particularly if they ultimately return to the workforce (full-time childcare builds skills that reap reward in professional sectors).
Moreover, what it means to be a stay-at-home parent is very different for some than others. On the home front, as Hirshman writes, “Men are not natural villains, but they will not make a fair deal . . . unless women stand up and ask for one.” More of us need to do that (see http://joiedeviv.wordpress.com/2011/0... for my thoughts on the topic). Even when only dealing with their fair share of housework and childcare, Hirshman is right to question whether too many stay-at-home mothers live a life of drudgery and solitude. I largely refuse to “perform[ housework] in isolation,” preferring to invite other parents over on laundry days so that I can fold while we chat or to involve my kids in laundry “games” that are both educational and fun (e.g., sock matching as an exercise in pattern recognition and spatial reasoning). I connect with the larger community in a multitude of ways (in person and in writing) that use my “capacities for speech and reason” and constitute “engaging in political life with other adults[,] having social . . . independence[, and] giving . . . to the society” (also described in my response to Valenti). I demand flexibility from my husband, budget, kids, and community to pursue my own interests so that I remain a fulfilled woman as well as a wife and mother. Many stay-at-home parents - myself included - can do more to get out of the house, help others, enlist assistance in return, and generally engage more broadly so as to lead flourishing lives.
We can help them do so. Hirshman is correct that “women have squeezed as much out of their days as they can without more help.” Let’s get them more help. Hirshman rejects public child care, paid housework, and other suggestions meant to enable women to work happily outside the marketplace as solutions that “involve wishful thinking about changing a deeply conservative culture and politics.” Instead, her “strategic plan to get to work” includes the following: “Don’t study art. Use your education to prepare for a lifetime of work. Never quit a job until you have another one. Take work seriously. Never know when you’re out of milk. Bargain relentlessly for a just household. Consider a reproductive strike. Get the government you deserve. Stop electing governments that punish women’s work” (i.e., abolish “joint marital [tax] filing”). In other words, work in a highly paid profession and have fewer kids. Once again, I hear a feminist asking women to shoehorn their own values and desires into the glass slipper offered up by society. At the risk of drawing fire for misremembering my history, perhaps she is the Booker T. Washington - urging the oppressed to work and rise within the system - while the “opt-outers” are W.E.B. Du Bois saying we won’t take the seventy-five hour weeks (that keep us from interacting with our children as much as we’d like) or the woefully insufficient part-time options.
Hirshman makes one argument regarding stay-at-home parents’ long-term happiness that gives me pause. It is one from economic independence: “your ‘choosing’ to shoulder the household at the expense of your market employment means you will be disempowered at divorce.” I personally put my faith in my husband and the law (a.k.a., both varieties of spousal support). I refuse to live my life preparing for a doomsday scenario where both abandon me. I’m also comforted by my desire to return to the workforce no later than when my youngest begins kindergarten. Each stay-at-home parent ought to mull over her/his own degree of economic dependence and plan accordingly, and policymakers should monitor the development of the law to ensure that a non-working parent's contributions over the course of a marriage are fully valued and remunerated upon divorce.
Finally, there’s the contention that strikes the deepest chord with me: even if an individual stay-at-home mother lives a fulfilling life, she is morally irresponsible. According to Hirshman, only working women “giv[e] more to the society than they take.” Those “who drop out of the public world demonstrate a singular indifference to the larger society . . . . [W]hen the[y] . . . do some volunteer work, it [i]s almost always at their children’s schools or at churches . . . . [T]he social good is concentrated only in a narrow, familial world.” I happen to believe that we should get more stay-at-home moms involved in volunteering and provide institutional support for the community strengthening they already do. Let’s also work on social and economic integration so that volunteering close to home doesn’t mean only serving those who look, act, and live like ourselves. But how anyone can discount the power and importance of grassroots efforts after Obama’s election is beyond me.
As for the second prong of the moral responsibility argument, Hirshman writes: “The abandonment of the public world by women at the top means the ruling class is overwhelmingly male. . . . The stay-at-home behavior also . . . tarnishes every female with the knowledge that she is almost certainly not going to be a ruler.” In other words, it’s less the brain-drain that’s the problem and more the sex-specificity of it. If I believe that stay-at-home parenthood is a personally and societally beneficial institution that fits some personalities and skill-sets better than others and can be improved with institutional and communal support, how do we get more men to do it? Get more SAHM’s to serve as examples of market “rulers”? After mulling it over briefly, I find myself turning to one of those ideas that “involve[s] wishful thinking about changing a deeply conservative culture and politics.” Hirshman says that women like myself who plan to parent full-time as a sabbatical of sorts and think they can then return to professional life and achieve great things are kidding themselves; they’ll never go back, and those who do will have lost too much ground to get the “ruler” positions. Here we have a bit of a cart and horse problem. If we alter the marketplace so that opt-outers returning to work can ultimately assume positions of power, maybe more of them will do so. If we count days or years at home as job development (something like a stint at the local DA’s office would be for a big firm lawyer or a year writing in the countryside would be for an English professor) and give both mothers and fathers who have worked “in-house” for a few years a fighting chance, practically and culturally, maybe more men will choose it. Once again, Hirshman has a fair point - though not one that should be wielded at women like a cattle prod, herding us back to the market.
In “Get to Work,” Hirshman is right to ask probing questions about the institution of stay-at-home motherhood, and I am grateful for the opportunity to think deeply about my chosen occupation. What I don’t appreciate is (1) her wholesale rejection of the institution and the women who choose it, rather than a willingness to look at reform, and (2) the current of judgmental nastiness (like calling Naomi Wolf a “so-called feminist”) that underlies much of her book. We do need to “get to work”; we need to get to work on the twin necessities of cultural and institutional change that will address Hirshman’s valid concerns - and to pay no heed to the rest of what she says.
February 1, 2008
Hirshman hypothesises about the pitfalls of "Choice Femism" or the "Opt-Out Revolution" in which women go to school, are trained to do great things and end up giving up their careers for the life of housework while their husbands continue to work. At first, it's hard to agree with her, because how can you argue with the value of a family, but then it got me thinking: Why is it assumed to be the woman's job to drop out to care for the children? That doesn't seem fair at all! No fair!!
Backed up with facts, even when it's maddening, Hirshman sticks to her guns and lets you know what she thinks about it. Definitely a great read to get thinking on the subject. I wouldn't say I agree 100% with her, but it's a great entryway into feminist literature.
It's also really well written. I even read the bibliography!!
Backed up with facts, even when it's maddening, Hirshman sticks to her guns and lets you know what she thinks about it. Definitely a great read to get thinking on the subject. I wouldn't say I agree 100% with her, but it's a great entryway into feminist literature.
It's also really well written. I even read the bibliography!!
August 15, 2008
I'll be brief: halfway through the book, I had to send the author fan mail. I felt like she'd said everything that had been in my mind and heart for the last 10 years. I polished it off in one sitting and bought copies for all the working mothers I know.
September 2, 2015
I checked this out on a spur of the moment at my library, looking for some feminist literature that I haven’t already read yet. I liked the overall feel of the concept of the book, but I really made a mistake by judging this one by its cover. Linda Hirshman, fortunately, gets right to the point which allowed me to put the book down after the first few chapters because I was, unfortunately, disgusted. I guess it was my mistake for not reading the inside coverlet. This book does almost nothing but slam women and even men who choose a Stay-At-Home-Parent lifestyle. Hirshman’s opinion on feminism in regards to women’s potential can be summarized in one sentence from her book: “The most disheartening part about women’s deciding to stay at home is that they say doing so is their choice.”–This is as if to say that women don’t really mean to choose motherhood or the Stay-At-Home-Parent lifestyle. Hirshman goes on to explain how it would be “beneficial” to women to have their choices narrowed down so that motherhood is less of an option. There is even this sickening tone of shame drenched all over the passages: “What do you need to live a good life in the real world? Among other things, a real job–and changing diapers isn’t one.” Sentences such as this are littered like garbage all over the book making it obvious that, according to Hirshman, being a mother is not a respectable thing for a woman to be and she should not choose it.
I was very frustrated reading this book. Her ideas are very wild. As a feminist and a woman who will be choosing motherhood one day, I found it offensive to women and I think this book gives the wrong message to young feminists who are beginning to experiment with life choices. Books like this insinuate the wrong idea–that women don’t have a choice even in feminism, and this is simply not true nor is it any way to open the minds of women. After reading this book, I can see how a young girl, new to feminism, would get a sense of shame toward herself because, before opening this book, she had desired a family of her own one day. AS IF US GIRLS NEEDED ANY MORE SHAME IN OUR LIVES!! I gladly give this book 1 star and I am glad I haven’t seen it on many Top Ten lists of feminist literature.
I was very frustrated reading this book. Her ideas are very wild. As a feminist and a woman who will be choosing motherhood one day, I found it offensive to women and I think this book gives the wrong message to young feminists who are beginning to experiment with life choices. Books like this insinuate the wrong idea–that women don’t have a choice even in feminism, and this is simply not true nor is it any way to open the minds of women. After reading this book, I can see how a young girl, new to feminism, would get a sense of shame toward herself because, before opening this book, she had desired a family of her own one day. AS IF US GIRLS NEEDED ANY MORE SHAME IN OUR LIVES!! I gladly give this book 1 star and I am glad I haven’t seen it on many Top Ten lists of feminist literature.
May 21, 2007
Highly recommend this one (I'm inclined towards manifestos and polemics anyway -- I like the genre and find the agon useful). Hirshman basically critiques what she calls "choice feminism" as illusory choice. That is, the line of reasoning among women that suggests, "whatever I choose is ok -- whether it's staying at home with the kids, trying to become elected President, or enslavement."
She points out that the women's rights movement of the mid-20th Century was great for starting to dismantle the patriarchal institution of work, but that we've done nothing to change the patriarchal institution of family. And that's where the real challenges lie now, she suggests; only when we fundamentally change this patriarchal arrangement and challenge these assumptions within family arrangements (i.e. which sex is the primary money-maker, which is the primary caregiver, etc.) will women become consistent and useful participants in public life. In order to get women into powerful positions, in other words, we need to free them from the patriarchal arrangements in their family lives.
Further, she calls for a moral critique of the so-called choices women are making -- particularly the choice to drop out of a career to be a stay-at-home mom. She suggests that this particular choice is highly mitigated (i.e. there are loads of institutional arrangements that lead women in this direction -- starting with the tax codes and ending with unquestioned assumptions about gender roles). She also asks: 1) are these choices good for the individual women, arguing that no, being a stay-at-home mom is not good for a flourishing life, and 2) are these choices good for society, arguing that no, keeping women out of powerful roles in society delimits us, and does not help anyone. Anyway, it’s an interesting and quick read.
She points out that the women's rights movement of the mid-20th Century was great for starting to dismantle the patriarchal institution of work, but that we've done nothing to change the patriarchal institution of family. And that's where the real challenges lie now, she suggests; only when we fundamentally change this patriarchal arrangement and challenge these assumptions within family arrangements (i.e. which sex is the primary money-maker, which is the primary caregiver, etc.) will women become consistent and useful participants in public life. In order to get women into powerful positions, in other words, we need to free them from the patriarchal arrangements in their family lives.
Further, she calls for a moral critique of the so-called choices women are making -- particularly the choice to drop out of a career to be a stay-at-home mom. She suggests that this particular choice is highly mitigated (i.e. there are loads of institutional arrangements that lead women in this direction -- starting with the tax codes and ending with unquestioned assumptions about gender roles). She also asks: 1) are these choices good for the individual women, arguing that no, being a stay-at-home mom is not good for a flourishing life, and 2) are these choices good for society, arguing that no, keeping women out of powerful roles in society delimits us, and does not help anyone. Anyway, it’s an interesting and quick read.
September 23, 2008
This book was an awful example of the concepts that some neoliberal feminists can put forth. She is a complete capitalist/individualist and encourages all women to go into business and tears down culture and family life. She completely ignores the construct of gender and is super into the binary gender system. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone.
October 31, 2007
Infuriating and also insightful, everything a good book should be. It will either make you cheer or want to pull Hirshman's hair out, but very entertaining.
March 25, 2016
Linda Hirshman is a heroine of our time, and you know it because liberals and conservatives both don't want to have anything to do with what she's asking them to consider - that we are all wrong, together, about how we view women in our culture. We've spent too many years patting ourselves on the back for winning the right to vote and have a few women in board rooms, as CEOs, and even representing us in government positions. But when we look at the vast numbers of men still outnumbering women in every position of power and prestige in our country, we have to take a step back, ask why, and re-evaluate what we truly believe and value.
I can't wait to read more books like these from minority perspectives, because when "research" focuses on so few individuals (predominantly from highly-educated, upper-class, wealthy family backgrounds), it really is just a book about trends and observations, and less of a journalistic or research-based approach. However, the trends and observations Hirshman makes here are valid, and if you just want to call her names because you disagree, guess what? You're proving her points, because you're refusing to add anything of value to the conversation. Grow up, and get to work.
I can't wait to read more books like these from minority perspectives, because when "research" focuses on so few individuals (predominantly from highly-educated, upper-class, wealthy family backgrounds), it really is just a book about trends and observations, and less of a journalistic or research-based approach. However, the trends and observations Hirshman makes here are valid, and if you just want to call her names because you disagree, guess what? You're proving her points, because you're refusing to add anything of value to the conversation. Grow up, and get to work.
August 19, 2012
THE BEST BOOK I HAVE EVER READ! This is the guidebook for my life. Every time I feel discouraged at work, I re-read this book. You will be inspired to be independent, make your own money, have your own aspirations, be your own person, and soar as high as possible.
Working moms: You are not harming your kids by having a career. You are providing an excellent model for them!
Ladies, put down Redbook and pick up The New York Times. Feed your brains! Go after the corner office. Climb that ladder. The world deserves your intelligence and hard work. You are not going to change the world by sitting at home. Get out there and give it all you've got.
Wives: Have money of your OWN! If your husband dies or walks off, you need your own savings, credit, retirement, etc. Men take care of themselves financially - why shouldn't women?
Working moms: You are not harming your kids by having a career. You are providing an excellent model for them!
Ladies, put down Redbook and pick up The New York Times. Feed your brains! Go after the corner office. Climb that ladder. The world deserves your intelligence and hard work. You are not going to change the world by sitting at home. Get out there and give it all you've got.
Wives: Have money of your OWN! If your husband dies or walks off, you need your own savings, credit, retirement, etc. Men take care of themselves financially - why shouldn't women?
February 11, 2021
As a woman who did not marry or have kids, I watched many of my peers eagerly quit careers, focus on family life and then wind up in middle age often as insecure shadows of their former selves. I always found this choice incomprehensible, because it limited their lives so much, wasted their educations and abilities, and can’t possibly be for the greater good of society. Plus studies show it didn’t make much difference for the outcome of their children’s lives, aside from ingraining patriarchal gender roles into yet another generation. The “choice” to stay home puzzled me and the vociferousness with which people defended it was worrying. It often seemed to be justified by morality and emotion, along with a passive resistance to fighting for a more fulfilling life.
Meanwhile I was also increasingly infuriated at the deep unfairness of the lives of my female peers who had kids but stayed at work. Their exhaustion, their mountains of responsibility and the sheer selfish laziness of the men they partnered with! I was agnostic about men of my generation until I saw how utterly crappy most were at home. Fuck them. Or rather, don’t.
By dint of my work, plus luck and privilege, I was able to retire early. What a miserable six months! Full of energy and intellectual interest, a home-centered life with some travel and a little nonprofit volunteering was ... stultifying. Again I couldn’t imagine how other women coped without careers. Also, living a life to suit my pleasures rather than serving society at large seemed immoral. So, I started my next job and then the next, etc.
This little book is one of the first I’ve found post second wave feminism, that openly and honestly addresses the need for middle and upper class women not to tie themselves down to a life of LESS. I’m sure the author suffered many attacks for her opinions - I barely ever say mine out loud because my gosh those anti-feminists, who think “choice” equals 1950s gender roles and that their nuclear families are more important than society, they are angry and they will go after you. I don’t always want to stir the hornets’ nest.
I’m grateful this author did though. I hope every young person in their teens and 20s, who could be helped to see beyond traditional cultural bonds, will read this. There’s a wonderful possibility of life out here for every gender. Please reach for more options and less exhaustion.
Meanwhile I was also increasingly infuriated at the deep unfairness of the lives of my female peers who had kids but stayed at work. Their exhaustion, their mountains of responsibility and the sheer selfish laziness of the men they partnered with! I was agnostic about men of my generation until I saw how utterly crappy most were at home. Fuck them. Or rather, don’t.
By dint of my work, plus luck and privilege, I was able to retire early. What a miserable six months! Full of energy and intellectual interest, a home-centered life with some travel and a little nonprofit volunteering was ... stultifying. Again I couldn’t imagine how other women coped without careers. Also, living a life to suit my pleasures rather than serving society at large seemed immoral. So, I started my next job and then the next, etc.
This little book is one of the first I’ve found post second wave feminism, that openly and honestly addresses the need for middle and upper class women not to tie themselves down to a life of LESS. I’m sure the author suffered many attacks for her opinions - I barely ever say mine out loud because my gosh those anti-feminists, who think “choice” equals 1950s gender roles and that their nuclear families are more important than society, they are angry and they will go after you. I don’t always want to stir the hornets’ nest.
I’m grateful this author did though. I hope every young person in their teens and 20s, who could be helped to see beyond traditional cultural bonds, will read this. There’s a wonderful possibility of life out here for every gender. Please reach for more options and less exhaustion.
July 25, 2017
3.5
- feminist theory
- flawed
- fascinating
- a tiny bit validating, a tiny bit of a scolding
- feminist theory
- flawed
- fascinating
- a tiny bit validating, a tiny bit of a scolding
July 27, 2011
This is a small book with big ideas. Linda R. Hirshman makes many excellent points but based around the Western notion of what constitutes “a good life” - using your talents and capabilities to the fullest and being rewarded for it.
Her reason against the relegation of talented and educated women to the domestic sphere is that it makes them dependant on men for money (those who make the most money wheel the most power) and it deprives society of skilled and gifted individuals.
I love how she challenges those who “choose” to stay at home with their children with the argument that the choice that these women make are from a narrow set of choices as their husbands or partners aren’t exactly going to give up work (income, opportunities to maintain & develop human capital and the chance to use talents) to stay at home.
She is slightly baffled how the most empowered women are often not able to see how narrow their options are at the moment of choice; that there is little discussion about who will opt out of public life to care for a child equally created by two people.
As if to justify their choice, many women cry out that it was “my choice”, but was it really?
While I write this I can hear the voice of conservative and socially regressive women shouting that women monopolize the ability to look after the children, meaning that it is somehow in their DNA to be primarily responsible for the domestic duties.
Shopping, cleaning and childcare have to be done so why not share the responsibility equally?
Her reason against the relegation of talented and educated women to the domestic sphere is that it makes them dependant on men for money (those who make the most money wheel the most power) and it deprives society of skilled and gifted individuals.
I love how she challenges those who “choose” to stay at home with their children with the argument that the choice that these women make are from a narrow set of choices as their husbands or partners aren’t exactly going to give up work (income, opportunities to maintain & develop human capital and the chance to use talents) to stay at home.
She is slightly baffled how the most empowered women are often not able to see how narrow their options are at the moment of choice; that there is little discussion about who will opt out of public life to care for a child equally created by two people.
As if to justify their choice, many women cry out that it was “my choice”, but was it really?
While I write this I can hear the voice of conservative and socially regressive women shouting that women monopolize the ability to look after the children, meaning that it is somehow in their DNA to be primarily responsible for the domestic duties.
Shopping, cleaning and childcare have to be done so why not share the responsibility equally?
August 18, 2008
I did read this whole book, but not extraordinarily closely because I was reviewing it for--guess what?--work. It's definitely got a tone, and it definitely provides examples to support the claims, but you know what? It's all anecdote and outrage. Far too many examples come from the blogosphere, and (frankly) the worst kind of group blogging sites there could possibly be. You know those sites that choose an experience a bunch of people have and invite all the yahoos in the world to blog there? Places along the lines of blog.sheltielovers.com? (I just made that up.) These are generic comments from generic people on generic topics. I don't think that quoting people from "bloggingbaby.com" and "mothersmovement.org" counts as research. Nor does reading the engagement pages of the New York Times.
But hell. It's a manifesto. Whatever. I guess the term manifesto means you get to set your own standards for making your own points. But it's so not even relevant to the "women of the world" that it drops into the realm of silly. I mean, she mentions some women on welfare in England in 1979. Just about everyone else ruining their lives is some law-degree holding up and comer now reduced to fighting over who empties the dishwasher.
It's also silly to make up the word "workingwomen," as if "working women" was somehow unclear or misrepresentative. I mean, she could have made some interesting points but she wrote a fairly forgettable book instead.
But hell. It's a manifesto. Whatever. I guess the term manifesto means you get to set your own standards for making your own points. But it's so not even relevant to the "women of the world" that it drops into the realm of silly. I mean, she mentions some women on welfare in England in 1979. Just about everyone else ruining their lives is some law-degree holding up and comer now reduced to fighting over who empties the dishwasher.
It's also silly to make up the word "workingwomen," as if "working women" was somehow unclear or misrepresentative. I mean, she could have made some interesting points but she wrote a fairly forgettable book instead.
December 18, 2017
Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World (Hardcover)
by Linda R. Hirshman
ordered ILL Dec 17 2017
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/...
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/1... can you get this article? if not print the abstract for the library
http://prospect.org/article/homeward-...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...
Title: Midlife crisis at 30 : how the stakes have changed for a new generation--and what to do about it / [ill ordered]
Author: Macko, Lia.; Rubin, Kerry.
by Linda R. Hirshman
ordered ILL Dec 17 2017
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/...
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/1... can you get this article? if not print the abstract for the library
http://prospect.org/article/homeward-...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...
Title: Midlife crisis at 30 : how the stakes have changed for a new generation--and what to do about it / [ill ordered]
Author: Macko, Lia.; Rubin, Kerry.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 28, 2018
Provactive and compelling
Every college-aged male should read this before getting married. Hirschman explains what aware progressives have always intuited about the working world: that women don't draw from the same set of choices as men do, and therefore their "choice" to conform to gender ideology is suspect.
Every college-aged male should read this before getting married. Hirschman explains what aware progressives have always intuited about the working world: that women don't draw from the same set of choices as men do, and therefore their "choice" to conform to gender ideology is suspect.
June 4, 2011
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
June 11, 2025
I first read this in July of 2007, in Bolton, and I dog-eared a series of pages that makes it pretty clear I was in a « no-kids » part of my adulthood and very different parts resonated with me today.
The one thing I think Ms Hirshman missed in 2007 is that the leftist rejection of work and capitalism was going to be a better factor than she could have known. Work really is crap much of the time for many of us and there simply aren’t enough interesting vocations out there. Kids are far more interesting and fun to spend time with than any job I’ve held for pay bar… teaching. So if I teach kids for money, does that make me live a full life? Is it how many kids I taught at a time that made it a fuller life than just raising my two? What factor takes something I used to do for pay and now do for free for fewer people (but just as happily) to the point that Ms Hirschman would say I’m living a full life?
The one thing I think Ms Hirshman missed in 2007 is that the leftist rejection of work and capitalism was going to be a better factor than she could have known. Work really is crap much of the time for many of us and there simply aren’t enough interesting vocations out there. Kids are far more interesting and fun to spend time with than any job I’ve held for pay bar… teaching. So if I teach kids for money, does that make me live a full life? Is it how many kids I taught at a time that made it a fuller life than just raising my two? What factor takes something I used to do for pay and now do for free for fewer people (but just as happily) to the point that Ms Hirschman would say I’m living a full life?
January 28, 2024
Outdated. We need current info to compare to this 2006 data. The author did not accomplish what she set out to do, which was to enlighten the 2006 generation of women in ridding themselves of housework. Instead, she wandered in and out of her issues with women working vs women caring for their children, ignoring the simple fact that, given a choice, many women may opt for a few years of mothering as a job. She apparently had an issue with David Brooks; grow up, get over it. If you want to play in that sand box, you'd better have your best communication skills honed. By the way, working outside the home does not get the house work accomplished; organization and a democratic agreement among the family members does, as does an incentive to all of the family members.
June 9, 2025
I want to start out saying this book is definitely from another time. A lot has happened in the world since this book was written. The author comes off in a strong manner but her beliefs can point to truth especially with a 2025 context. She makes strong points about how motherhood and continuity of work matter to a woman, specially economically. It’s a good read, especially if you are in your years of family planning.
December 22, 2023
provocative read (as manifestos tend to be) so not for everyone. certainly didn’t love all of her tips and she can come off a bit patronizing and condescending, especially to women who genuinely enjoy being stay at home moms or having jobs that don’t make 6 figures. but the fact that I’m still thinking about this book/its overall message 3 weeks later says enough to warrant 4 stars
February 6, 2025
Lots of this makes a ton of sense and we still haven’t figured a solution as a society for women to have families and careers. The book is 20 years old and it still feels timely. The way she writes can at times be alienating. (A lot of my way or the highway.) And yet, because it makes sense I couldn’t stop reading.
April 21, 2021
I loved this book. Recommended reading for all women with careers. Honest, bold and well written. frankly I found it to be inspiring. It is written from a heteronormative perspective, so women whose partners are not men may not feel this is relevant to them.
January 4, 2024
This will anger a lot of women but it speaks truth. We can’t make changes in the power structure when we opt out of the system that enables us to achieve power, freedom and financial independence. Putting this next to How to Compose a Life.
Read
March 4, 2024Beyond the rather fanatic tone are some salient points, and she is compelling if you give it a shot. Fascinating fascinating
February 8, 2021
Yikes. An unconvincing diatribe by a sad, bitter woman.
July 21, 2018
I mostly agreed with what the author is trying to say here, just few thoughts:
- This book is specifically about middle and upper-class women in US who go to university, graduated, get married, then give up all their career ambitions to be a stay-at-home mother, despite all opportunities given to them. We would argue differently on how to discuss about stay-at-home mothers in low-income class in developing nations.
- Agreed that women should work in order to have a fulfilling life & that giving up your career ambitions for domestic life is kind of sad. Women should work in politics, research think-tank, private sector, etc if we really want to eradicare the assumption that women don't belong in these industries. But the challenges remain: we should make affordable child-care more accessible to working women (just to name one).
- I don't think women choosing to study art is less important than other subjects. I agree that art industry is not the best career choice objectively speaking as there is probably only 1 in 100.000 ratio of people making it big with their art. But if women knew the consequences before studying it, we should let them do it.
Another one that might be a bit off topic:
- The beautiful thing about democracy is books like this exist, and as people have pointed out before, the tone could be a bit condescending to stay-at-home mothers. But this book is just a book, throwing ideas, without forcing anyone to read or believe in it. This is something we shouldn't take for granted, as many live in this world with values forced upon them. At the end, you can do whatever you want as a woman or man, but reading this book is important.
- This book is specifically about middle and upper-class women in US who go to university, graduated, get married, then give up all their career ambitions to be a stay-at-home mother, despite all opportunities given to them. We would argue differently on how to discuss about stay-at-home mothers in low-income class in developing nations.
- Agreed that women should work in order to have a fulfilling life & that giving up your career ambitions for domestic life is kind of sad. Women should work in politics, research think-tank, private sector, etc if we really want to eradicare the assumption that women don't belong in these industries. But the challenges remain: we should make affordable child-care more accessible to working women (just to name one).
- I don't think women choosing to study art is less important than other subjects. I agree that art industry is not the best career choice objectively speaking as there is probably only 1 in 100.000 ratio of people making it big with their art. But if women knew the consequences before studying it, we should let them do it.
Another one that might be a bit off topic:
- The beautiful thing about democracy is books like this exist, and as people have pointed out before, the tone could be a bit condescending to stay-at-home mothers. But this book is just a book, throwing ideas, without forcing anyone to read or believe in it. This is something we shouldn't take for granted, as many live in this world with values forced upon them. At the end, you can do whatever you want as a woman or man, but reading this book is important.
September 23, 2016
Not sure I agree with the premise, but an interesting side of feminism.
January 1, 2013
This is an important book because this argument is not entertained enough in today's society. As women, it is considered very poor form to question a career woman's decision to give up that career for child-raising. Yes, salary is forgone. But so is career furtherance, retirement savings; independence is exchanged for dependence, in so many ways. And returning to the workforce isn't always so easy. The fact that it is, more and more, middle and upper class college educated women who leave careers for mothering is more troubling as these are the women most needed in male-dominated professions. The fact that SAHMism is a badge of masculinity for the men that support these women (and children) and a status symbol for some women who do not have to work speaks volumes about how our culture views womens' roles and mens'. Is it any surprise, then, that employer coverage of contraception continues to remain a sticky point for many conservatives when lack of contraception could very well lead to less women in the profession and the continuation of a society where men hold the pursestrings?
For me, this book was most influential. It convinced me to secure my career and to take it seriously, to not just sign away on slipshoddy pension funds and weak pay packages. It reminded me of the value of my college education and gave me the courage to stay in the profession and trust my children to the care of my mom and quality day care providers so that I could continue to support them and myself, financially. Staying in the workforce, after reviewing my retirement statement, was the best decision I made for the whole of my family.
For me, this book was most influential. It convinced me to secure my career and to take it seriously, to not just sign away on slipshoddy pension funds and weak pay packages. It reminded me of the value of my college education and gave me the courage to stay in the profession and trust my children to the care of my mom and quality day care providers so that I could continue to support them and myself, financially. Staying in the workforce, after reviewing my retirement statement, was the best decision I made for the whole of my family.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews