Katha Pollitt on Hirshman and Flanagan

Here, at The Nation. And can I add: Woot! It’s good to have new Pollitt columns to read.

–Ann Bartow

Share
This entry was posted in Feminism and Culture. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Katha Pollitt on Hirshman and Flanagan

  1. Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Katha Pollitt on Flanagan and Hirshman

  2. Pingback: Creative Destruction » Katha Pollitt on Flanagan and Hirshman

  3. and then Pollitt said:

    “That said, there’s something refreshing about Hirshman. Why should the antifeminists monopolize the high ground? It’s about time someone asked, again, such basic questions as: If cleaning the house is so fulfilling, how come men don’t want to do it, and how can you get them to do it anyway (cf., milk, obliviousness to lack of)? And if having a mom at home is so beneficial to kids, how come even Flanagan admits she could see no difference in children raised by stay-homes and working mothers except that the working mothers’ kids seemed smarter?

    Like other kinds of conservatives, antifeminists have no problem engaging in moral discourse. Feminists have indeed traded that language for the I’m-OK-you’re-OK language of personal choice, and are now in the philosophically absurd position of smiling politely at everything women do, from naked mud wrestling to home schooling. But what happens when the choice is a bad idea, for yourself, for other women, for society? Don’t we ever get to talk about that? “Choice,” moreover, assumes people have, and know they have, real alternatives. But what if the “choice” is the forced, or at any rate predictable, result of a lot of previous choices you didn’t realize you were making? (This crucial insight was not originally Hirshman’s but Rhona Mahony’s, in her brilliant 1995 Kidding Ourselves, on which Hirshman rather heavily relies.) Antifeminists are always telling young women to be strategic–restrain your ambitions, marry straight out of college, have kids right away or end up alone and infertile. It’s about time feminists pointed out that equality at home and on the job takes planning. Hirshman’s gotten flak for advising women to have only one child, and only with a man who agrees to be an equal parent. (As it happens, most of the professionally successful mothers I know have two kids.) But a few months ago the New York Times front page featured an upscale businesswoman who was astonished to find that having a third child sent her careful balancing act tumbling down. How, I found myself wondering, could that have come as a shock?”

    What is up with this site? As this full version of Pollitt’s smart and favorable review reveals, my book, “Get to Work” anticipated Pollitt’s and Ehrenreich’s well-taken and long overdue critiques of “choice feminism” (phrase mine). It’s one thing to say I make you vomit — any reader can take that sort of thing for what it’s worth. But it’s quite another to truncate a review so badly that it leaves the opposite impression of what was actually said. Bartow’s version of Pollitt on Hirshman resembles nothing so much as those concocted “reviews” failing Broadway shows make up.
    While you’re at it, Feminist Law Professors, you might take a look at the great reviews of “Get to Work” in Slate, Salon, and The New Republic.

  4. Ann Bartow says:

    Hirshman said: ‘What is up with this site? As this full version of Pollitt’s smart and favorable review reveals, my book,”Get to Work”anticipated Pollitt’s and Ehrenreich’s well-taken and long overdue critiques of”choice feminism”(phrase mine). It’s one thing to say I make you vomit : any reader can take that sort of thing for what it’s worth. But it’s quite another to truncate a review so badly that it leaves the opposite impression of what was actually said. Bartow’s version of Pollitt on Hirshman resembles nothing so much as those concocted”reviews”failing Broadway shows make up.”

    If you re-read the above post, you will see that I simply linked to the full text of Pollitt’s review above when I posted this link WITHOUT ANY EXCERPTS WHATSOEVER. Sheesh. I didn’t cull any quotes at all, no less only critical ones, so your accusations are completely unwarranted. Then YOU very conveniently quote the favorable parts of Pollitt’s review in your comment here, but leave out the negative parts, while terming it a “full version.” Sheesh again.

    On balance I don’t read Pollitt’s review as particularly favorable. You are entitled to your opinion, and to have your say here, but dishonesty will not go unchallenged.

    By the way, as I tried to explain previously, when I blogged elsewhere about vomit, etc. in relation to your new book, it was a sarcastic response to your exhortations to feminists to be more harshly judgmental.

  5. so here’s what’s weird. Both “Alas, A Blog” and “Creative Destruction” post the IDENTICAL comments on this site, even including the grammatical error of not putting quotation marks around their excerpts from Pollitt’s review. Both Alas and Creative tell us in the identical words that they didn’t independently discover that Pollitt was critical. “[…] Ann at Feminist Law Professors directed me to this excellent Katha Pollitt piece.”
    Now how likely is it that both Alas and Creative posted identical verbatim comments to Ann’s piece, including the same grammatical error?
    Indeed, if you follow the links to the both comments, you see that both Alas and Creative use the identical negative quotes, say, in the IDENTICAL words, “In the article itself, Pollitt spends relatively little ink on Flanagan, instead concentrating on Hirshman, who Pollitt finds some good in – but still criticizes,” and skip all the positive parts of Pollitt’s review. Thus does a positive review become negative.
    Now how likely is it that both Alas and Creative came up with NOT ONLY the identical negative quotations from Pollitt, complete with grammatical error, but also the identical characterization of Pollitt’s piece, which, they both say, Ann Bartow called their attention to? Neither Alas nor Creative cite the other one, but the text is, have I mentioned, IDENTICAL.
    Could it be, dear readers, that someone sent Alas and Creative selected excerpts from the Pollitt piece, which is, on the whole, supportive, along with the template about how to present them as NEGATIVE?! And then, mirabile dictu, the same text surfaced not only on their blogs but as two identical comments on this website, which seems despite its sweeping title, to have essentially only writer?
    What was it I interviewed Ann Bartow for years ago?

  6. OK, I get it. One blogger is the Feminist Law Professors, none of the long and honorable list of actual FLPs to the right ever appear here, comments are almost nonexistent and the ones that purport to be about Pollitt’s review of my book are actually the same comment that the poster puts up time and again, presented as if they were from different sources. I withdraw my registration and will happily go to my grave never knowing whether all this vomit and the rest is because I didn’t hire the webmaster in some long ago time and far away place. That’s all.

  7. Ann Bartow says:

    You obviously don’t get very much.

    1. Alas, A Blog and Creative Destruction are not related to this blog, except that both are feminist blogs. I do not run Alas or Creative Destruction, Ampersand (Barry Deutsch) does. He explains quite clearly at both blogs that they mirror each other, the difference being that comments at Alas are heavily moderated but the comments at Creative Destruction are not. See e.g. this: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/22/moderation-faq-and-policy/

    2. Briget Crawford and I maintain this blog, posting anything that the folks in the blogroll ask us to. Many of the folks in the blogroll blog substantively elsewhere (E.g. Christine Hurt at The Conglomerate, Orly Lobel at Prawsblawg, KC Sheehan at Doing Justice, etc.) because the focus here is fairly strictly related to feminism. I blog at Sivacracy as well as here for that reason as well.

    3. Your insinuation that you interviewed me (and turned me down) for a job is cheap and dishonest, what a surprise. You interviewed me for a book you were writing about law schools, not for employment.