Lecturing stay-at-home mums does nothing for gender equality

One of the irritating things about highly successful women is that they are often quick to attempt to impose their lifestyle ideals onto the rest of their gender. At a recent Fortune Most Powerful Women summit which featured prominent women leaders in business, government, media, philanthropy, and the arts, Cherie Booth QC told the audience:

“One of the things that worries me now is you see young women who say, “I look at the sacrifices that women have made and I think why do I need to bother, why can’t I just marry a rich husband and retire?” and you think, how can they even imagine that is the way to fulfill yourself, how dangerous it is…you hear these yummy mummies talk about being the best possible mother and they put all their effort into their children. I also want to be the best possible mother, but I know that my job as a mother includes bringing my children up so actually they can live without me.”

Her comments came after Elizabeth Wurtzel delivered a scathing critique of stay-at-home mums “helping kill feminism”, because “real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own”. Although Booth’s argument seems less outrageous when contextualised, I was left puzzled as to why women like her and Wurtzel are leading the discussion on women’s access to the workplace. They are both highly successful lawyers who have never had to fret over the cost of childcare, which rose by another 6% this year. Whilst it is true that some women are forced into work because of financial circumstances, changes to tax credits mean that 44,000 fewer families are getting help with paying for nurseries and child-minders, which now outstrip monthly housing costs. Britain is the most expensive country in Europe for childcare, which often exceeds £100 per week for a part-time nursery place, and stands in stark contrast to Iceland, where nurseries cost between £70 and £118 per month including breakfast and lunch. And a 2011 study found that rising childcare costs were a key factor in the decision of the 32,000 women who chose to become stay-at-home mums in the preceding year. In their rhetoric Wurtzel and Booth have failed to identify government’s role in limiting the prospects of women across the UK and US and essentially forcing them into domesticity, instead treating stay-at-home motherhood as little more than the choice of the lazy, selfish and unambitious. Coupled with disastrous paternity leave provision, it is clear that the insistence upon female responsibility for bringing up children is ingrained within the system.
 
But economic constraints only go so far in explaining why so many women prefer to stay at home. What happens when a woman is successful and financially independent but still chooses childrearing over the workplace? It is her free choice to leave work and raise the kids, right? Not necessarily. As Katie Gardner observes:

“What women do not have a choice in is the societal ‘norms’ and structures that can at times present enormous obstacles to their success, and can put pressure on them to stay at home not out of choice, but out of ‘what is good and right for the family’ –an entirely socially constructed notion.”

And it’s true. Working mothers often face social stigma and accusations of eschewing the best interests of their children in a desire to ‘have it all’; Gwyneth Paltrow recently championed stay-at-home mums, arguing that “this may not be feminist, but you have to compromise”, to murmurs of admiration from male and female reactionaries alike. The zeitgeist is still one of separate spheres. It would therefore be naïve to counteract Booth and Wurtzel with the argument that women are completely free to decide whether to stay at home or not, because social conditioning and existing patriarchal structures ensure that in many cases the decision is never really theirs. What Booth, Wurzel and Paltrow all have in common is that they are exclusively endorsing one kind of motherhood and dismissing all other choices as morally wrong. But in reality there is no definitive, foolproof way to raise your children and live your life. We need to work towards an environment in which women are able to make these decisions freely, unhindered by outside economic and social pressures, and in which childcare and housekeeping are no longer seen as ‘women’s work’. Cheap and flexible childcare and fully paid paternity leave, such as that provided in Denmark, would be a positive legislative step towards large scale societal change. Personally I favour a more  community-based approach to childcare, in which men and women take responsibility collectively. But I digress.

While reading criticisms of stay-at-home mums written by the likes of Wurtzel, I was especially struck by the implied assumption that work is useless unless there is some kind of salary involved. In a capitalist patriarchy, more money means more value. Those at the Fortune Most Powerful Women summit who’ve made it big in various careers are able to smugly celebrate their contributions to society, while women who aren’t in paid employment and are deemed to have added nothing to the socio-economic infrastructure are easy targets for high-flyers. Wurtzel thinks it is “feminist” to demonise women who don’t want to go down to the job centre – and it’s not like every stay-at-home mum has had the same educational and career opportunities as her – and chooses to trivialise whatever unpaid work they do at home.

I don’t think I could ever be a stay-at-home mum. I would find it boring, lonely, and claustrophobic. But there is nothing inherently wrong with a woman, or a man for that matter, leaving paid employment to look after his or her children. The real problem is that it is women who are still regarded primarily as caregivers and homemakers, an archaic attitude which is reflected in legislation and rooted at the core of our patriarchal society. When does a choice become a free choice? How do we distinguish between those who have chosen freely and those who have been pressured or conditioned to choose? The truth is that we can’t. All we can do is accept that there is no one model of motherhood; understand that we are dealing not just with government but also with the force of capitalism; and continue to beat against the current of patriarchy. Wurtzel in particular has done none of these things. So congratulations on undermining, devaluing and alienating these “yummy mummies”, for many of whom the prospect of a decent salary or an education is about as likely as you scrubbing floors for a living. And many simply couldn’t care less about what you think of their childcare arrangements.