Get to Work: . . . and Get a Life, Before It's Too Late

by Linda R. Hirshman

Book Overview

Now a classic, a groundbreaking manifesto calling into the question the idea of "choice feminism"

Does changing a toddler 's diapers count as a fulfilling job? Is the glass ceiling that keeps women from advancing in their careers actually located in the home? In Get to Work, a book that instantly ignited a firestorm of debate, Hirshman cogently argues that "opting out" of the workplace is a form of self-betrayal. Combining a hard-hitting...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 014303894X
• ISBN13: 9780143038948
• Release Date: May 2007
• Publisher: Penguin Books
• Length: 112 Pages
• Weight: 0.22 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.3" x 5.3" x 7.1"
• Age Range: 18 years and up
• Grade Range: Postsecondary and higher

Customer Reviews

Societal Good vs. the Individual

Before I read the book, I had heard Professor Hirschman on an NPR interview. Her comments seemed straightforward and non-controversial. The more that highly intelligent, highly educated women choose to exit the workforce, the less chance there will be leaders in the business, scientific and political realms who are female. I've now read the book and still don't understand why this is controversial (other than from the perspective that women have no place in positions of leadership?!) She is not "attacking" women who stay at home -- she is rightly pointing out that if all women do stay at home, our economy, our country, our culture will be run by men. All of this "staying at home has tremendous value" really does miss the point. We live in a world. The world has an economy. The world has a political structure. The world has culture. If women avoid pursuit of leadership in these realms in favor of staying home, men will continue to run the world. This discussion doesn't apply to all women. There are men who are content to not be the leaders of their time (all of the factory workers vs. the one CEO, all of the practitioner doctors vs. the doctor who found the polio vaccine, all of the painters vs. Picasso, all of the political volunteers vs. the President). There are men throughout history who were content to serve their family and their community. We don't know these men's names -- because they did not advance the cause of their societies and civilization as a whole. There is lot to say about whether one -- personally -- deems it a higher quality of life to serve the family or a close knit community vs. to make great contributions to the world. But it is ridiculous to attack someone who makes the very reasonable point that if all women stay home, women will forsake their ability to make the great contributions that shape civilization. It is still a fact that women -- while an equal demographic force -- are a minority force in top undergraduate and professional programs. Women are underrepresented in every possible area of business, political or artistic accomplishment. Whether comfortable or not, it is a fact that every woman who is capable of attaining a position of leadership and chooses to stay home is diminishing the possibility of women attaining equal status in our society. On the household level, it makes perfect sense that if women had the same stance as men (cooking and cleaning are a great mystery more understood by the opposite sex), the results might be more equitable. (I always marvel that when certain "household" tasks move to the professional level -- cooking, baking, decorating, dry cleaning -- the tasks are dominated by men.) As for the rearing of children, how can one argue that if children have stay-at-home mothers they have powerful role models that say that men accomplish things in the greater world and women's sphere is limited to the home?

wake up ladies! it's all good until you get dumped

This book is telling it like it is. I know SAHMs don't want to hear it, but as someone who's been there, done that, I have to say I agree with the author's premise entirely. I was a SAHM mom (usually working freelance or part-time, but never making more than $22K/year, even though I've got a master's degree from a great school). The power disparity that developed between my husband and me eventually became utterly unbearable. When he dumped me (and yes, all you "happily married" SAHMs, there is a VERY good chance this will happen to you, soon as your adorable little kids are older and not so adorable, and same with you), I had to scramble to recreate something of a secure life for my teenage children and myself. If I had it all to do over again, I would never have made myself so economically vulnerable. I know SO MANY 40- and 50-something women who are stuck in pathetic sham marriages to men they despise (and haven't slept with in years) because they need the money. To me, this is nothing but legalized prostitution. The author is right--get to work and NEVER let yourself be financially dependent on a man. The chances of a man wanting to support you forever are almost nil. What are you going to do when he dumps you? It seems like all the SAHMs writing reviews are 100% confident Daddy/Provider will always be there for them. Wake up ladies! Men get bored. They get tired of being the sole breadwinners. They have midlife crises and break your heart by sleeping with their secretaries. Ever wonder why every "happy family" portrayed on TV and in the movies features LITTLE children? Because that's when families are happiest together. As the children grow up, and especially once they become extremely expensive teenagers (ever try to insure a teen driver or two?), men tend to bail one way or the other. BE PREPARED to support yourselves. And the only way you can do that is to keep working. As I said, if I had it all to do over again, I would have found a way, ANY way, to keep working throughout my children's lives. Sure, we had some good years together at home. But it wasn't worth the poverty and anxiety that followed once the breadwinner decided to walk...think about it!

excellent analysis of the gender politics of the household

This is an excellent piece of scholarship and a long-overdue addition to the literature on women's equality and feminism. Society's unwillingness to examine the politics of the household in the age of the working woman is inexplicable and frustrating. Working women constantly face a barrage of media anxiety about the impossibility of juggling both home and work-- yet no one, save Hirshman, focuses on the need to change men's roles at home and the failure of men to "step up to the plate" at home, in both ways large (making professional sacrifices like relocation, getting off the partnership track) and small (remembering to pick up a gallon of milk from the store on the way home). It is simply impossible for anyone, male or female, to manage both spheres single-handedly with success-- but the solution is not to yank women out of the workplace or force them to Mommy-track their careers, but to shift an equal portion of the family/household burden to men. A simple and elegant notion that shouldn't be revolutionary but unfortunately appears to be in our society. Hirshman recognizes that, for women to be truly equal, it isn't enough to participate in the workforce; rather, if women are to do well in the workplace, men must be willing to share responsibility for the family and home. Her writing is clear and articulate; her message is powerful and compelling. Strongly recommend the book.

How Refreshing

This is such a refreshing book. So many professional women opt out of their jobs and then cling to the 'noble' goodness of motherhood and apple pie. Frankly, I think that certain stay at home mothers - pretend that they made the right decision when underneath it they have regrets about what they have given up. A college girlfriend is always trumpeting how 'happy' she is about staying at home. which is nice, but kind of odd wouldn't you think? I love my job, but I don't say - I'm so happy to be a working mother in my first greeting. For the so-callled - I love being a stay at home mommers - why not have chosen a career in child development in the first place? I would concur though that in early child years, it is certainly nice to stay at home for a few years yet it's oh so critical to keep a foot in your career too so that onramp is still there when one wants it. Note also that in divorce situations - it's mostly the women who suffer financially with reduced career prospects, reduced retirement savings, etc. Love my kids, love my husband, and love my job, and am glad to keep it that way.

Thought Provoking

At the end of the day, the freedom to choose one's way of life is the greatest freedom of them all. However, Hirshman raises an incredibly important point: there are consequences to our choices and we need to realize what they are. Hirshman's thesis may be contentious, but you can't say she doesn't have a point. Even if you're the happiest housewife in the world, it's important to recognize the cost of your happiness: economic freedom, social prestige, and intellectual productivity. Even if -you- don't put much value on these, you must acknowledge that society does. And society will judge you by them. Of course, at the end of the day, it is every woman's right to choose how she will live her life. But this book raises a point that is strangely ignored in this age of equality: this choice that each woman makes is the exact same choice as is made by each man. The question of equality between men and women cannot be considered without an inquiry such as Hirshman's. And each woman's choice as to who she is relative her husband and children should not be made without considering the points Hirshman raises.