If a tree falls in the woods and that sound is so insane it barely qualifies as a crash, does it really make a sound?

I have a confession to make: I wasn't going to post today. I was going to do other things. Then I walk by the TV in the breakroom and find out that a woman is trying her darndest to make stay-at-home moms feel guilty for staying at home. ABC News is calling her comments "controversial," which I suppose they are since I'm posting this right now. Let's just go paragraph-by-paragraph thru the accompanying abcnews.com story, shall we? This needs to be nipped in the bud right now, and I'm just the 30-something childless white guy to do it.

Feb. 22, 2006 — An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.

So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among mothers.

First of all, one side saying all manner of crap and the other side reacting to it isn't really a debate. If I insist to you that up is actually down in order to advance a liberal agenda, you might get a little intense, but it wont be a real argument. I suppose Ms. Hirshman may actually believe what she's saying here, since she's old enough to remember the ultimate goal of (long-dead) pre-Madonna feminism, which is Rule by Women. Is that a worthy thing to shoot for? Only if you think women need to fight against a patriarchal and evil system that keeps them from realizing their potential, and you don't care about anything else but that. Moving on...

Census figures show 54 percent of mothers with a graduate or professional degree no longer work full time. In 2003 and 2004 Hirshman interviewed about 30 women whose wedding announcements had appeared in The New York Times in 1996 and who had had children. Five of the women were working full time, and 10 were working part time. The rest were not working at all.

"We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society, and is widely imitated, even by people who never get their weddings in the Times," Hirshman wrote. "This last is called the 'regime effect,' and it means that even if women don't quit their jobs for their families, they think they should and feel guilty about not doing it."

INSANE ASSUMPTION ONE: The only reason a professionally educated mother would choose to stay at home is guilt. The underlying thought behind this, of course, is that women have been convinced they should stay home by patriarchal society and conventional thinking, both of which are The Enemy, so they must be wrong. In her exhaustive survey of 30 mothers, it turns out 15 stopped working entirely, and 10 more only work part-time. This is bad for society? Only if you believe in Feminism Uber Alles, which nobody does. This is bad for the women themselves? Only if you believe that they are staying at home solely out of man-driven guilt, which isn't true.

Hirshman also said educated women choosing to stay home was bad for them as individuals.

"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," Hirshman wrote. "Measured against these time-tested standards, the expensively educated, upper-class moms will be leading lesser lives."

Redundancy of thought [sic],
INSANE ASSUMPTION TWO: She thinks she's figured out what constitutes a "good life" for humans. Think about that for a second. Consider the high levels of presumptuousness and arrogance you would need to make that claim. Not only that, but she goes with three standards that at best don't even apply to the situation, and at worst seem to contradict what she's saying. "Using one's capacities for speech and reason in a prudent way" depends on what you think is prudent. Same deal with "doing more good than harm in the world." And "autonomy" might be easier, Ms. Hirshman, if presumptuous and arrogant people would stop telling women that they know what's good for them. Just a thought.

Note also she doesn't seem to care about inexpensively educated or non-upper-class moms. They can never lead a good human life, so why bother? If they don't advance the liberal cause, they might as well not exist, and their opinions are not valid.

Faith Fuhrman has a master's degree in nursing, but chooses to stay home with her children.

"The job I was in when I had, first had my child, I couldn't have done it," Fuhrman said. "I was working 14 hours a day. I was on call."

When Debbie Klett became a mother, she quit her job in ad sales and started a magazine called Total 180 so she could work from home and spend more time with her children.

"For me, I feel it is vital to be there for my children every day, to consistently tend to their needs, to grow their self-esteem, and to praise them when they're right, guide them when they're not, and to be a loving, caring mom every minute of the day," Klett said.

The obligatory "balance section." This is boring. However, I would point out that not only did Ms. Klett quit her job, she started her own magazine from home. She went from saleswoman to entrpeneur, and I'm sure that Ms. Hirshman would probably be on board with that, since she's "doing more good than harm." Do we really need more ad salespeople?

Klett acknowledged there were consequences to her choice to stay at home. To save money, her family has given up cable, does not go out to dinner, and does not go on vacations.

"We made tremendous financial sacrifices for me to be able to stay home with my children, and I wouldn't trade that for the world," Klett said.

Sacrifice? Crazy. What a waste, right? What of those poor children, growing up in a house with no cable? Oh, wait...I grew up in a house with no cable! And this after I complained loudly that Dan across the street had it and it was sooooo cool! Not having cable made me unhappy! My parents must have been monsters!

What About the Children?

Hirshman argues that Klett's children would be fine if she worked outside the home. Statistically there is no difference in the happiness levels of the children whose mothers work and the children whose mothers stay at home, she said.

INSANE ASSUMPTION THREE: Statistics can measure the relative value of a childhood. We all know that "happiness level" is the sole criteria for child rearing, right? You know, if you buy children what they want, they're probably pretty happy, or at least they think they are. This paragraph is actually so infuriatingly inaccurate and deceptive it's hard to know what to say. I guess if you want to believe something, you can find statistics to back it up. You just have to ignore common sense and the mountains of anecdotal and scientific evidence that champion the stay-at-home mom.

Deborah Skolnick agrees. She is a magazine editor who will not give up her job and feels working is a good example for her children, and helps them in other ways.

"I think my kids are as well-behaved and as well-socialized, if not better, than a lot of a fair number of at-home moms," Skolnick said. "I see at-home moms whose children won't separate from them, won't go to school, cry at the door. My children have learned, from an early age, that Mommy will be back. So they kiss me and they say goodbye."

This makes what little hair I have stand completely on end. I don't know Ms. Skolnick, but I'm going to work under the assumption that she honestly loves her kids and wants what's best for them. I also have no idea if she's right in her thinking that her kids are no more or less bratty than the kids who have moms at home. Here's the thing, though:

INSANE ASSUMPTION FOUR (and one that explains a lot, including potentially misleading statistics about the value of staying at home with one's children vs. the value of showing them that women can have careers): All stay-at-home moms are alike. They aren't. There are good stay-at-home moms and bad stay-at home moms. There are moms who read to their children every day and try their best to make sure their kids are getting an education, and there are those who just want to stay at home so they don't have to work anymore, and just view school as a convenient babysitter. There are moms who love their children so much they want to control their every move, and moms who beat their children when they get out of line. There are also good working moms and bad working moms, too. This is all common sense.

So am I saying that it doesn't matter for the child whether or not mom stays at home? No, you fool. The perfect situation is one where mom stays at home and dad works one job and comes home every night, and both of them love the child and put his/her needs before their own. Any deviation from this perfection is bad, no matter how happy the child might seem. This perfection is my assumption (again, as a male with no kids), and I think it's an obvious one. I also have seen this play out in countless households with countless kids. I've seen this play out with me.

The snarky side of me wants to point out the obvious disconnection Ms. Skolnick's kids feel towards her, but I'm just not that presumptuous. Ok, so I am. Check this out:

Fuhrman asked her 13-year-old son what he thought was the benefit of having a stay-at-home mom.

"He said, 'Well, I really like to come home every day and finding you here,'" Fuhrman said.

"But on the other hand, my daughter says to me, 'Mommy, when I grow up, I'm gonna get a job at your magazine, and I'm gonna sit at the same desk as you and we're gonna be on the same magazine together until we die,'" Skolnick said. "And that makes me kind of happy."

Which sentiment would you rather get from your child? Interesting that the two statements really say the same thing, no? Both kids want more mommy in their lives. These two quotes sum up the issue quite nicely, and probably not in the way the article's author intended. I love that.