So Hilary Rosen Ann Romney blah blah blah.  You didn’t get comment from me on the matter because  last week was the buildup to the 2012 Minnesota NOW conference, which involved a great deal of work…..for which I was not paid.

At the conference I was approached by a political campaign that was interested talking with me about my writing.  ”Is this a volunteer opportunity or a job?” I asked.

You can guess the answer.

A friend of mine works more than 40 hours weekly where our daughters attend school.  She monitors the cafeteria, goes on field trips, assists with special events, and fundraises like a maniac.  I’m not exaggerating when I say that school would crumble without her.  What’s her job title, you ask?

Co-Chair of the PTA.  Yearly salary: nothing.

On Facebook, a friend posted one of the bajillion links to the Rosen/Romney feud and one of HER friends claimed that her stay-at-home-mommy work is “priceless” and she would be “offended” if the government paid her.

I said:

And I wasn’t kidding.

Jill at Feministe wrote a few thousand words on the subject before getting to the real heart of the matter, which is:

Free female labor props up our economy and saves us all tax money.  …women with children, whether they work outside the home or not, aren’t just doing the inside the home care-taking work; they’re volunteering at schools, in community centers, on sports teams. They’re filling the gaps that state and federal funding leaves, so in the short term kids get necessary classroom assistance when lawmakers cut programs. Women are much more likely to be a (again unpaid) care-taker for an aging or ill relative. As a nation, we can afford to not pay for necessary things because there are so many women who are doing those things for free.

Again, in bold and all-caps: “FREE FEMALE LABOR PROPS UP OUR ECONOMY.”

Capitalism depends on our unpaid work.  We are conditioned to do it at every turn.  My job is  so idealized by our culture that my colleagues in the business (women like the Facebook poster) feel ashamed to ask for what is their due.  Ashamed! Can you believe it?

Second Wave feminism declared that women should have opportunities outside the home, but forgot to add that men need to shoulder the burdens inside the home.  The revolution should have demanded as many stay-at-home dads as female CEOs.  But it didn’t.  The goals of the movement became allied with making money, which is one reason why feminism gets accused of being anti-family.  Family is so precious is cannot be allied with something DIRTY like MAKING MONEY!  It’s the madonna/whore binary all over again.

No matter what women do, we’re made to be either/or.  To rob us of nuance is to rob us of autonomy, and that’s just how patriarchal capitalism likes it!

If you think that all of your decisions in life are your own, that you “choose your choice,” then you fail to question the systems in place that perpetuate oppression.  Systems like capitalism, patriarchy, racism, classism, you name it.

Here’s an example.

Minneapolis Public Schools is in trouble.  Every year, the budget cuts get deeper and deeper and the achievement gap between poor and not-poor students is astonishing. Yet somehow, my daughter’s school seems to persevere, and will continue to do so as the ax drops in the future.  Why?  Because of people like that PTA co-chair I know.  One day I asked her: “Would you consider going on strike to highlight how much free work the district gets out of you?”  She looked at me like I was nuts, and I knew why–a PTA strike in our school would only hurt the children, and women are conditioned to think of the children and not themselves.  Minneapolis Public Schools counts on the free labor of middle- to upper-class women to prop up schools when their budgets are cut.  Schools without the free labor force are left to fend for themselves, and their test scores show it.  Class systems stay rigidly enforced.

If women went on strike and refused to volunteer, our school district would have to put much more, and I do mean MUCH MORE, pressure on government officials to fund them adequately.  If the women who prop up our school system went on strike, Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak would be forced to put $150 million of city tax money towards hiring school staff, not towards a Vikings stadium–whose profits will be funneled straight into the pockets of the 1%.

Here’s a picture of our poor, old, inadequate football stadium.  I think it just needs an army of unpaid women to puff it back up again, don’t you?  Maybe we gals could install some of those fancy new corporate suites that the menfolk say they need to conduct the networking business whatchamacallit.

The Official Mommy War Narrative™ would have this PTA co-chair incredibly offended by me suggesting  such radical ideas.  We live under consumer capitalism, a system that encourages competition and discontent–if I’m right, you’re wrong.  Either/or.   If I pick a philosophical fight with Hilary Rosen, Ann Romney, the PTA moms, Linda Hirshman, Jessica Valenti, Phyllis Schlafly, The Feminist Breeder, Amanda Marcotte, the editors at Jezebel, and/or Hillary Clinton, I’ll be distracted.  In my absence, Minneapolis will build a billion dollar football stadium, and its achievement gap will remain one of the worst in the nation.

The (white, male) rich will get richer, the poor will get…..

A note from one of the publishers at the Minnesota Women’s Press reminded me of my long-delayed intention of talking a bit about a fellow Radical Shannon out there. Namely, Shannon Hayes, she of the Radical Homemaking book and series of articles in Yes! magazine. I appreciate her ideas (for the world needs MORE radical Shannons in it, not fewer) but she and I have totally different practices and goals.

Hayes’s subtitle is “reclaiming domesticity from a consumer culture.” As a committed pinko, I like anything that questions the status quo. Capitalism exists to make us all desperately unhappy sheep. The short term consequences are increased L’Oreal and Bud Lite sales–long term consequences are entrenched classism, racism, and sexism.

Hayes’s book site states that “it is the story of pioneering men and women who are redefining feminism and the good life by adhering to simple principles of ecological sustainability, social justice, community engagement and family well-being.” Elsewhere, she writes “in essence, the great work we face requires rekindling the home fires.”

And that’s where we part ways.

It starts with the word “homemaker,” one that I have always found problematic. How does one MAKE a home? I haven’t a clue. Is it by washing the floors? Baking from scratch? Quilting? Gardening? Reading bedtime stories? Nurturing relationships? I clean my home. In the interest of sustainability, I recycle and compost like a maniac, carry my cloth bags with me, bike it up, etc. etc. But I don’t think that keeping a coop of chickens or canning the beans from my garden is the way towards a more just world.

For one thing, “rekindling the home fires” implies turning inward, reaffirming the family as the basic unit of society, just like the folks at the Christian Coalition. Now, I don’t know if Shannon Hayes is religiously motivated. But once you start turning inwards, towards a unit that looks like you, talks like you and thinks like you, you start getting out of touch with the complex systems that conspire against the people who DON’T look like you!

Feminism is about fighting oppression in all its forms. That means we must work outward, not inward. This is why I must place Radical Homemaking on the Mommy Wars spectrum, despite its fine intentions. Examples of Radical Homemakers, the author included, have only been well-off, highly educated white women. Remember “The Opt-Out Revolution,” anyone?

A discussion on the subject at Bitch led me to the blogger Vegan Burnout, who wrote: “to frame the choice between working a soulless 9-to-5 or building a backyard chicken coop and learning to can tomatoes as the only feminist options is reductive and insulting.” It’s easy to choose your choice when you have so many choices to choose from, so that when you do choose, your choice is automatically the best one! It’s the Opt-Out argument from 2003 all over again.

So why did I pick the Radical Housewife moniker, then? Because I find the word “housewife” really funny. That’s why. When I’m asked to fill in the box marked “occupation,” I say I’m a writer and an at-home parent. The damn home can make itself for all I care.

Sorry, Radical Shannon. I just don’t buy it (anti-capitalist pun intended).

Ok, pop culture nuts. Here is the clip of Kate “Reverse Mullet” Gosselin in action that’s got the blogosphere abuzz.

I have never seen this program, but it has captured my imagination along with the rest of the country because it seems to encapsulate so much about what is wrong with America today. You know the usual suspects: fame, greed, infertility treatments, reverse mullets, the works. With this clip we can now add the age-old “is she a good mother?” obsession to the mix. The commenters on Gawker, where I first saw this clip, made a variety of excuses for how annoying whining children can be, so in their opinion Kate deserves the benefit of the doubt. I have a different take.

I am something of an expert on difficult children, never more than when summer vacation is underway. I can see myself in Kate’s shoes here, grinding my teeth with rage after a long day of being harassed by a gaggle of little brats. One strategy is to keep the jaw wired shut and ignore them, which Kate is doing here. One could also explain to Mady calmly that it’s almost time for the interview, and Mommy will get her a drink once it’s over. A truly wonderful Mom of the Year might ask the Access Hollywood staff if they could delay the interview so all eight of the kiddos could get a drink, but it could be argued that Moms of the Year do not have reality television programs that get them into these situations in the first place.

One thing you NEVER, EVER do? Get yourself a water bottle and drink it while your thirsty kid cries. Parents are constantly challenged to balance what their children need with what the parent wants. It’s a push-pull that happens to every adult with a small person in her care. This is a good example of how the parent’s want takes precedence, with disastrous results. To hear Mady Gosselin plaintively wail “you’re really really mean…you drank right in front of my face!” is to witness the effect of emotional abuse on a 8-year-old child. It’s a disgusting power trip and it makes me sick. I can only hope the backlash will lead to this show’s cancellation.

I feel terrible for all of Kate’ children, but I also feel better for my two. Summer vacation might not be so bad after all.

I am usually sent these salvos in the ongoing Wars of Mommydom, because I am a unique case–I’m an at-home parent who doesn’t think everyone needs to do it. But despite my penchant for cackling at Rush Limbaugh’s radio show whenever I can, I live in a pretty insulated left-wing bubble. No one I know reads the Wall Street Journal, so no one sent me this gem, published in April 2009, which is so full of baloney it should be banned by the CDC for possible swine flu contamination.

By MICHELLE KUNG

So the article begins with a point on which Laura and I can agree–that there are middle class, two-income families who could make the drop to one income if they wanted to care for a child at home. Of course, Laura Schlessinger has not middle class when she got herself knocked up, so that’s easy for her to say. She doesn’t consider the public library to be her family’s entire entertainment budget, nor does she chauffeur her li’l pumpkins in a dented ’99 Saturn. I do.

But here’s where the conversation veers into the Hall of Fucked-Up Mirrors in Phyllis Schlaflyland.

WSJ: What do you tell women who are hesitant to leave their jobs?

Dr. Schlessinger: You know how when you try to quit smoking you chew gum? You replace one thing with another because it distracts you. What I would tell these women is that they’re spending too much time thinking about what they have to give up, and feeling angry about not being valued. Look at me — I made the transition from being a powerhouse to being at home, folding laundry. What they need to do is find value elsewhere. I tell these women to look in their children’s eyes. When your husband comes home, wrap your body around him at the door and look at his eyes. What people need to learn is that it’s not about the drudgery of housework — it’s about being at home for all of those incredible moments that make your life more valuable than the person who replaced you at work. No one can replace mom. Kids who don’t have moms suffer a lifetime. (emphasis mine)

Let me declare to all the world that my husband truly is my best friend and partner in life. I don’t tell him this often enough. But if my only joy in life were wrapping my body around his and gazing into his big brown eyes, he would likely divorce me. Surprise! He respects my intellectual pursuits, too. No reasonable adult wants to be put on a pedestal like that.

Why are women still telling each other that love is all we need?

WSJ: What questions should working mothers ask themselves when deciding whether to quit their jobs and become stay-at-home mothers?

Dr. Schlessinger: The nut questions should be: Do I feel fulfilled as a woman? Do I feel like my husband’s girlfriend? Do I feel like I have touched the soul of my kids? Those will help you decide.

My biggest beef with the Mommy Wars is that it perpetuates patriarchal systems by perpetuating women’s self-hate. Yeah, I said it: PATRIARCHY! What else is at work when we’re told that all we should be when we grow up is someone’s caretaker?

WSJ: Where do stay-at-home dads fit into the picture?

Dr. Schlessinger: I recommend that during the first three years, the mom should be at home because all of the research shows that the person whose body you come out of and whose breast you suck at, at that stage, really needs to be the mom — unless she’s incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. After that, flip a coin.

Ha, ha. Dr. Laura said “you suck.” Back atcha, bitch.

WSJ: At what point do you advise mothers to go back to work?

Dr. Schlessinger: The answer is never.

Blah blah, there’s more about the virtues of playing board games with your kids, which is such incredibly insightful parenting advice that I’m amazed no capitalist fatcat at Parker Brothers ever thought of it.

WSJ: Do you think it’s possible for a working mother to raise a smart, successful child?

Dr. Schlessinger: I didn’t write this book about working moms. I wrote it in praise of stay-at-home moms. It’s a wonderful choice, but to be absolutely truthful, having been on both sides of this mentality, my heart hurts for what these women miss and what their children miss from them. No argument, no criticism. My heart just hurts — because when you get those pudgy arms around your neck, and being told you’re someone’s lullaby — the fact that a woman would miss that is so, so sad. (emphasis mine)

Did I neglect to mention that the most powerful weapon in the culture war is the reinforcement of self-hate? Women’s self-hate kept them from thinking they deserved the right to vote, after all. What Laura is spewing here is no different than the ideological cult of motherhood that developed after the GIs came home from WWII and wanted their damned jobs back. Your time for riveting is over, Rosie–because you wouldn’t want to miss out on a chubby pair of arms snuggling you! What kind of woman would you be then, Rosie, huh? Don’t you kinda hate yourself for missing out on that womanly experience?

Do not misunderstand–I love the feel of my babies’ skin. They sucked me for nourishment until they drained me dry. I play board games with them. I did, and still do, all of the things that Laura is advocating here. But to glamorize it in black and white terms is dangerous, to both women and to their families. No job should be so imbued with this kind of ridiculous mythology, much less a job that is thankless, dirty, and unpaid.

Speaking of pay, just how did Laura find the time to get famous enough to get a book publisher for this tripe? I thought she spent all of her time cuddling her son Deryk, who, according to Wikipedia, was born in 1985, making him nine years old when her radio show was syndicated. In the WSJ piece she claims that she made sure she did her on-air chats when he was in school, but looking at Wikipedia again, we also see that she published her first book in 1994. When did she write it? She wrote another in 1996, another in 1997, another in 1998, 1999….. that’s a lot of writing to get done while you have a teenage boy drinking from your breast. I bet he hates her fucking guts, if only for being stuck with the name “Deryk.”

But look at me, sillies! I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of another woman, and I’m not supposed to do that! I’m a nurturer! Loving others is my only role in life! I AM A MOMMY!