Inspired by my old friend's concern I have been publishing the letters that come in so readers of GTWM.com would share some of the good stuff I have seen since Get to Work came out in June. So I have been reading the letters more closely than I did before, and I have concluded that even the head swellingly praising ones are starting to be repetitious and that the critical ones have descended to a level unworthy of response.

Accordingly, unless something unusually interesting comes in, this third installment of the weekly letters will be the last. You may safely assume that they are running about three to one in favor. : )

The week opened with on a positive note:

Hi Linda,

Thank you for your article in the Prospect and thank you for your book.

When I read the Prospect article I was a senior at Penn in the Wharton school. At the time I’d begun to realize that if I wanted to have children I was going to have to stay home at some point (better for the kids, my own mother did it, etc). This thought was buried in the back of my mind but I resented it. It made me hesitant in stating my professional goals 10 years hence. Would I still be working? Would circumstances conspire to keep me at home, once I’d had the four kids I so desired? It seemed so unfair, such a waste. Why toil for four years at the world’s best business school only to end up changing diapers? I am the brightest in my family – the most academic. Why would I wind up changing diapers despite all my talents? It all came crashing down around me. Then your article. I was ashamed to see a bit of myself in your condemnation of women fixated on a perfect, idealistic working situation. But I loved every word.

At a fundraiser dinner party I had the opportunity to discuss feminism and workplace inequality with a CFO at Merrill Lynch – the proud wife of a stay-at-home dad. The next day, I emailed her your article. I passed it on to my mother, who stayed home for 14 years to raise my 3 siblings and me. (She returned to work after her divorce and, lacking a college degree, has never come close to achieving her pre “opt-out” earning power). I posted the Prospect link in my AOL Instant messenger profile. I wanted everyone to experience the epiphany you’d given me.

I graduated from Penn in May and am now employed as an analyst at a [identifying details omitted]. It is worth nothing that I am the only female in a firm of [ ] men. I recently bought and devoured your book. I thank you from the depths of heart. Your words changed the course of my life. I still plan to have children. But I now plan to fight for my right to work. Your arguments gave me a moral framework for articulating a position that is so often misunderstood.

When I was in high school, and Britney Spears was just dawning into public consciousness, I heard the words “female empowerment” batted around too often. I knew how I felt watching Britney Spears and it had nothing to do with empowerment. This phrase is now used to describe almost anything in what you call “choice feminism” - from stripping exercise class to staying at home. I thank you for publicly rejecting the idea that because a woman does something it is inherently feminist and empowering. Your words crystallize this point. Although you offer economic prescriptions your moral reasoning is also the perfect framework from which to view the cultural phenomena described in Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs.

A last note on economics – though I consider myself to be a well-read feminist, much of the books, outside the major works, are intuitive fluff or flights of fancy. Too long have feminists failed to offer scholarly works of real relevance. Also, coming from liberal arts and women’s studies backgrounds they often fail to fully grasp scientific and economic disciplines. Thus these books usually provide flawed analyses or shy away from economics and science completely. I greatly respected your book for your thorough understanding and use of economics (my own discipline).

I could go on forever. I respect you immensely and greatly admire your analysis of this topic. I cannot thank you enough.

Sincerely,

***

and continued with

Dear Ms. Hirshman
I want to thank you for your recent articles. I am the mother of a 2 month old daughter and a PhD student in bioengineering at the University of Maryland. I had to laugh at your descriptions of the mommyblogs in your follow-up article. I made the mistake of going to one of those boards seeking information when I was pregnant and was told that I did not care about my daughter if she went to daycare while I went back to school this semester. The truth is, I cannot imagine giving up teaching, working in my lab, attending classes, all while getting paid. Apparently the fact that we use daycare part-time and my husband (gasp!) takes over the child-rearing duties in the evening means that I am Satan incarnate. But somehow my husband is wonderful for changing the diaper of a kid he fathered.
I do have one bone to pick. Why is it that you focus on elite women? My perception of the women whose marriages are in the New York Times is of women with rich husbands and even richer fathers. There are many of us who do not have that same privilege yet are out in the world making a difference. I grew up in a working class neighborhood where all of the moms worked because it never occurred to them not to. Breadwinning and child-rearing were shared. The truth is, it is primarily only elite women who have EVER had the privilege to choose to stay at home. It is not something new! My mother, grandmothers, and most likely great-grandmothers all worked. If you write another piece could you possibly mention those of us who worked our way to enticing careers, not just those who started at the top (meaning lots of money) and never did anything with it?
Thank you,

***
Hi,

I'm really enjoying your book. I'm a Mississippi girl who escaped to England about 18 years ago. My parents never paid attention to my education because I was just going to get married & spent a fortune on trying to turn my brothers into doctors and lawyers. What a joke when it turned out that I was the smartest kid they had & my brothers couldn't make their dreams come true. But by then I was at a liberal arts college, as you could have predicted. It took me years to turn my English degree into something useful -- now I make good money as a technical writer for American multinationals in England. I also freelance -- and have written stuff for the Chicago Tribune -- I laughed when I read you writing about how the Trib could just publish a freelance mom's opinion about Iran in their pages 'cause that's what I've done with them (only I wrote about Iraq).

Anyway, in England they stream kids early based on their intelligence and aptitude so my daughter is on her way to a medical degree at a top university here so at least I have rectified the 'girl goes to liberal arts college' prob for the next generation in my family. :)

I read some American mags over here and noticed the interview with you in More mag. I also noticed that More runs articles on how great it is for women to give up their boring jobs and follow their bliss with what they really want to do like, I don't know, designing baby clothes or something. What's fascinating is how they'll say something like they are almost making what they did before but have no health insurance and no pension plan -- like that's OK. I find it so shocking that this is presented as something positive.

We are all so blind about what is best for our girls but you are helping us to see.

Keep up the good work,
[a reader in]

Reading England

I get wonderful letters from people I feel that I know, to tell me of interesting things out there in the zeitgeist that I would surely miss. Thank you and keep those calls and letters coming!

One sent me to Reason.com: http://www.reason.com/0610/cr.sc.the.shtml

She said, "The writer comes to your conclusion that both the right and left want women home with the kids. "
***
Another wondered flatteringly why Newsweek didn't come to me for their cover story on "Sequencing."
She wrote:
"Did you see the article in this week's Newsweek about moms having trouble going back to work after they've taken time off? If you haven't, here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14869072/site/newsweek/.
I was a bit disappointed that they didn't call you for comment. In any case, what do you think about these companies supposedly responding to the problem? I was quite skeptical when I read it -- sounded like a lot of pie-in-the-sky solutions to me. "

The answer, of course, is that Newsweek didn't want someone debunking their drug dealing offer to women to quit because they could always come back. See my other post, on the More Likely to Be Killed By A Terrorist Award for the most damaging sexist article for more on the Sequencing trap.
***

The critical letters were pretty much as usual.

"Good day,

I have just read your article, "Unleashing the Wrath of Stay-at-Home Moms". You have undoubtedly received responses filled with extreme emotion from both sides of the issue. May I share my thoughts after 6 years of inner reflection on the debate to stay-at-home or work? Then again, why would I ask when my intention was to tell you anyways.

I have no claim to be as highly educated as yourself, and I certainly did not turn my back on any opportunity to run a large corporation. However, I do pride myself on trying to remain open minded.

LH:I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE WRITER'S REASONING:
"My conclusion is this; mothers should do what makes them happy, because a happy mother is the best mother."
SO IF A DRUG ADDICTED MOTHER WERE THE BEST MOTHER, THAT WOULD BE HER ADVICE? WHATEVER MAKES YOU A GOOD MOTHER, WHETHER IT'S GOOD FOR YOU AS A PERSON OR NOT? WHERE ARE THE FATHERS, EXACTLY?

I am happy staying at home with my children. I don't feel as though I am superior to a working mother just because I stay at home. It shouldn't be a matter of who is superior, it is a matter of who is happier! Children want and need their mothers to be happy. If a mother is not happy staying at home then the child will know and feel it. Doesn't a child deserve a happy mother regardless of what other people think? My children are happy because I am happy, whether that happiness is produced by me staying at home as their primary caretaker or whether I work 40+ hours a week. Apologies in the advance for quoting Dr. Phil, "But if Mamma ain't happy, then nobody's happy."

Why should women continue to bicker amongst themselves over their maternal abilities. We should be supporting each other rather than feeling superior to each other, a superiority that is a front for insecurity. Now that would make a great article!

Mother of two daughters (4yrs and 6 yrs old)
***
Then there are just weird things like the following:

"Question: Dear Linda,
I am currently reading your work, "Get to work." I read your bio and noted that you argued three cases before the US Supreme Court. As a third year law student I was wondering whether you challenged the rule requiring women to wear skirts when arguing before the Supreme Court? I understand that only those who have standing may challenge the rules. If you have not made issue of this rule, why not?

Thank you,
KTe"

What?
***
But the saddest one was the following from a young woman whose name I leave off, because I am hoping that someone else is writing me, as Mark Twain famously said, and signing her name. She purports to be a third year law student, and this is how she writes [bracketed material mine]:

"dear ms. hirschman: [She misspells my name, a ridiculously careless error. I hope she does not do this when she addresses, say, a judge.]
as [Apparently, her computer does not have a shift key, as there is no capitalization anywhere in the document. In Don Marquis' immortal Archy and Mehitabel, the diarist, a cockroach, used "i" for "I" because a cockroach cannot type and hold down the shift key at the same time. It was adorable, but in human communication, it seems a little strange.] a 3rd year female law student on the brink [Brink? It's a fall of some sort?] of graduation, i was deeply offended by your article. to even suggest that women, such as myself, would put in three years of blood, sweat and tears [Law school is not fun, but I doubt it can be compared to the British experience in World War II. Repeat after me: the first person to invoke Hitler loses the argument] in order to get a "MRS" degree is ludicrous. my interest in becoming a lawyer was never motivated [passive voice] by "the dating game" - in fact, i cannot think of one of my female classmates who was. and [Beginning a sentence with "and" is very tricky and should never be done unless the writer is deliberately trying to be folksy] to suggest that leaving the workforce in 10 years in order to perpetuate the human race should force women to give back any scholarship tuition they may have received is a slap in the face to motherhood and femininity. [I am thinking that "scholarship tuition" wasn't all that well spent if "slapping femininity" is what passes for a powerful argument against my point.]

how dare you [Here's the second powerful argument]? don't you think that as more women enter the field in positions of power, the entire system will accomodate [accommodate?] our needs? instead, you think if we want to get married and have children 10 years down the line, we should have to give up the financial assistance we received? where is the logic in that? how about the men who years after law school decide that the law career is no longer suitable for them? i know a former lawyer who gave up a law career to become a high school english teacher when he had a family. should we ask him to give back his scholarship money? or does he fall outside of your proposal because he is incapable of bearing children? [apparently the writer did not actually read my article, which says explicitly that penalizing only females is not only probably unconstitutional but bad public policy]

i am not so disillusioned to think that balancing a law career and family will be simple. but changing my career 10 years down the line to accomodate [accommodate?] any family i should have is not something for which i should be punished. [So the writer apparently does plan to go to law school and, within ten years, change her career] shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

This is silly. I don't want to spend my time on this stuff, and I bet you don't either. It was bad enough when it was just erupting from the blogosphere, but these writers purport to be LAW STUDENTS. I hope they are not, but I'm certainly not going to spend more time on this stuff.

To end the letters on a happier note, here's my favorite subject matter line from this week's mail:

You are right right right right RIGHT!

I hope my friends are now reassured, and we can turn our attention to more important matters. Tomorrow, the first annual "More Likely to Be Killed By a Terrorist than Marry" Retraction award for a transparently false, yet damaging publication on women.