As Rebecca Traister points out in her Salon article “The Stay-at-Home Mystique,†the opt-out theory has been a point of controversy for some time now. Most memorably, the New York Times ran a story in 2003 in their Sunday magazine entitled “The Opt-Out Revolution,†angering many women who actually hadn’t left their job to be a mom.
There is always going to be a new opinion to add to the post-feminist pot when it comes to the sensitive subject of stay-at-home versus stay-at-powerful-job-title. I don’t understand why a woman’s choice to raise her children needs to be politicized, since the goal of feminism is really about having choices, and not about having women rule in the CEO sector.
Total 180, a new magazine produced by mothers who have opted-out, is “The magazine for the professional woman turned stay-at-home mom.†According to Traister, this mag portrays life as a stay-at-homer to be rife with frustration and inequities:
The first item in a section about goods "that no stay-at-home mom should do without" is a big bottle of Rodney Strong Chardonnay. A photograph illustrating a piece called "Martha Doesn't Live Here" depicts a crazy-eyed woman wielding a turkey-carving knife. The "Sex Scorecard" feature is about women who tally up their husbands' daily good deeds and sins and allow his score to determine whether "he is -- or ISN'T -- 'getting any.'" What about whether she is or isn't getting any?
I can see how Traister would come to the conclusions that she did about Total 180, but in an interview section with the co-founder, Debbie Klett, the interview subject had to switch from gripe mode to defense--quick. The first question, “Do you find a contradiction in publishing a magazine about stay-at-home mothers when you yourself have gone back to work?†immediately asks Klett to explain herself, as if there is only one model of a stay-at-home mom (I’m sure that there are many women who do some kind of work while taking care of their children without being haunted by the irony of their contradictory lifestyle). Another Q & A goes like this:
Q: Are you conscious that statements like that -- about how you know you're doing the right thing -- will make many working mothers feel angry and guilty? A: I am totally conscious of that and that is a personal statement based on my own choice. Everyone has to do what they feel is right for themselves. I know by putting my family first I'm doing the right thing for me, for my children and my family unit. But everyone has to do what they feel is right. If a mom is going to stay home and not be happy about it and be in a bad mood all day because she resents it, then that's not going to be good for the family unit.
Although I would probably assign myself more to the interviewer’s philosphy camp than to the interviewee’s--Klett totally loses me later on when she starts talking about all the “weird stuff†that is going on these days such as kids in school giving oral sex for money because their mothers aren’t at home with them--I think that this interview shows how in this case, one side just doesn’t want to hear anything from the other. It’s not that Klett shouldn’t have to answer tough questions, but the questions seem just as steeped in assumptions as the answers do.
Anonymous (not verified) @ January 10, 2006 - 12:25pm
I agree it was an awkward interview. However, as an educated, professional woman who opted-out to care for my young children I found their interactions almost amusing. I would have been in Traister's shoes 10 years ago. She, like most women, have no idea what it's like to be caring for young children! Whether a mom heads off to work or not, there is a lot of work do do on the homefront once young'uns enter the picture.
»