I was sent this interesting article today. Noted nutbar Linda Hirshman has announced that stay at home moms are evil. What they do (raise their kids?) is bad for them, their kids, society as a whole, and represents everything that is wrong with the world.
Or something like that.
Levity aside, I honestly think that Hirshman has it completely wrong. She makes the following comment:
"A good life for humans includes the classical standard of using one's capacities for speech and reason in a prudent way, the liberal requirement of having enough autonomy to direct one's own life, and the utilitarian test of doing more good than harm in the world. Measured against these time-tested standards, the expensively educated, upper-class moms will be leading lesser lives."
I'm curious to know what her feelings on low-class, dumb women are, aren't you? Or, maybe they just weren't worth writing about.
Her understanding of the purpose of education is, in my opinion, flawed. What makes her think that highly educated women who stay at home with their children aren't using their education in a prudent way? Educated women can use their knowledge to benefit their children. I don't see how this is an imprudent use of one's talents.
In any case, the end goal of education is not to make money. I assume this is her feeling; that education exists to assist in making a wage. While it certainly does help in that, the true pupose of education is the expansion of one's mind. It is a benefit in and of itself. As a professor, she should know this. Hirshman would do well to brush up on her Plato.
And maybe shut her trap and get back in the kitchen with the rest of us.