Guess who is totally ruining feminism? SAHMs from the top 1 percent, that's who! Writer and lawyer Elizabeth Wurtzel says so in The Atlantic: "1% Wives Are Helping Kill Feminism and Make the War on Women Possible." OMG, Elizabeth! No, they're not.
Pttthh. Let's not give this tiny group of women so much credit.
Wurtzel makes the case that rich mommies who stay home with the kids are not really working because they're actually just leaving the kids with the nannies while they run off to yoga and their manicures. Fair enough, I'll give her that. But who the hell cares? Why are we even talking about this minuscule collection of women? Let's talk about the rest of us moms -- stay-at-home or not.
Wurtzel says the whole point of feminism "was that women were losing their minds pushing mops and strollers all day without a room or a salary of their own." Fine -- feminism is about economic, professional, political, and intellectual equality. (Although let's not forget that to a large degree, feminism began with wealthy SAHMs, see "American Suffrage Movement.")
But life is complicated, especially for us "regular" people. Some of us get jobs because we have to. Some of us don't get jobs because those jobs just barely cover childcare. Some of us consider parenting intentionally -- even if that means staying home full-time with the kids at great financial sacrifice -- a feminist act.
Wurtzel gives a passing nod to the 99 percent of us with hard choices. But then she makes these logical leaps. If I'm following correctly, they go something like this:
- Rich women who stay home with their kids are not doing any sort of work whatsoever and are infantile because they're not supporting themselves.
- The rich men who support these idle women think all women are as stupid and dull as their wives.
- These are the same men who run everything so no wonder they keep blocking feminism.
Whaat? Like it's rich wives' fault their CEO/Congressman husbands are such jerks! I think she just hates her rich, SAHM friends. She thinks they're boring (they probably are). She thinks they're lazy (hmm). She thinks they matter (but they don't).
But their husbands -- the ones who supposedly think all women are as stupid and idle as their wives -- they are increasingly rubbing elbows with the Sheryl Sandbergs (COO of Facebook, let us not discuss their disappointing IPO here) of the world. Sandberg will be the first to tell you that part of feminism's great gains have been made by convincing men to share the housework. Unpaid housework. Oh wait -- there I go again, talking about working and middle-class people.
"Something becomes a job when you are paid for it." I accept that definition of a job. But work is work, and someone has to do it. Parenting -- teaching babies how to talk, teaching toddlers how to share, teaching children how to pick up their Legos -- may not be a "job" according to Wurtzel's definition, but it's definitely work. But then, I guess you'd actually have to have tried parenting to know that. Good thing The Atlantic had an expert speak to that subject ... oops.
As for feminism, I'll take all the allies I can get. I don't think we're at the point yet where we can be so picky about who the "real" feminists are.
*I never do this but FINE, you're right, bad question. I've revised it.
Do you agree with Wurtzel that being a wealthy stay-at-home mom disqualifies you as a feminist?
Image via d4rr3ll/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 19
You did a pretty good job of summarizing the high points of the article - especially that Wurtzel is pointing a finger at the top 1% wealthiest SAHMs - but then you completely undid yourself with the question at the end since THAT'S not actually the question.
Do you agree with Wurtzel that being a stay-at-home mom disqualifies you as a feminist? I can't really answer since that's not what Wurtzel said!! I might agree that the top 1% wealthiest SAHMs aren't really feminist and my answer to your question, as posed, is an emphatic NO, but all I really got out of all of this is that reading comprehension might be a lost art.
Ok how about this, the war on women has been bastardized SO bad. I think those who REALLY cause us setbacks are the women who sleep around, the women who have 7 kids by 6 fathers, who dress in clothes that show (not show OFF - show) their backside. Women who lie about being raped. Women who take drugs while pregnant. These are the women who truly set us back. These women give ALL women a bad name, and many of them actually do these things in the SPIRIT of feminism! "I can wear what I want, do what I want, sleep with who I want. Wait. Why do you think I cant think for myself?"
I don't think they write the question at the end. A lot of them seem to be written kind of off topic like this.
I had no idea who she was until right now so I could care less what she says about anything.
Ooo...thanks Maevelyn!! That would make much more sense and make me feel so much better! LoL!! Reading comprehension might still be an issue, but at least it's not the author's issue! :)
Sounds to me like Elizabeth Wurtzel is J-E-A-L-O-U-S of the 1%ers and hating makes her feel better.
I so agree with you Robin. The point of feminism was for women to have to choice to do what they wanted with their life. Rather it's owning their own company or staying home to raise children. I've been on both sides of this fence as a working and sahm mom and who I am to say which is harder because all of our lives and circumstances are different. Women like her who think you can only really be one way to qualify as being a feminist makes me not want to be a feminist.