Here is a somewhat petty, but not irrelevant, point as well: She’s probably a huge hypocrite. What is the way for an academic to “get to work” in a way that gives her power and status within an institution? To get tenure, which can be a long hard slog that requires many sacrifices. Linda had several teaching jobs, but did she ever get tenure? Her bio is strangely cagey on that point, so I’m guessing no. How long did she practice law? Oddly, the bio is a little vague on that as well.

If you read her stuff, she explains exactly why.

She’s critiquing choice feminism. Therefore, it makes sense to focus on the women who actually have choices.

Boom. That’s it in a nutshell for me. All this talk about “role models” is just so much swill. Those high-powered women don’t give a rat’s ass about working class women, just like their male counterparts! Why is Hirschman ignoring the vast majority of women who aren’t “opting out”, hmmm? Seriously! We are the majority, most of us have an education, we haven’t taken any “time out” from our careers (unless we got laid off)—yet still, we aren’t rising to the top. Why is that? Ya think it might have to do with, oh, I dunno—sexism? The fact that after all these years of feminism, there’s still plenty of men who aren’t comfortable mentoring women and opening the doors of the “inner sanctum” for women? Even though the vast majority of us have a proven record of staying power in our respective careers?

Bullshit. Change isn’t going to come from the top on down—it has to come from the ground on up. Unionize! Organize! Vote! Agitate! Shake the earth with the voices of the many! That’s what will bring change. I’m a union member. I get paid the same as my union brothers. If I was in the corporate world, I wouldn’t—period. The solution to sexism won’t come from the trickle-down theory.

Those who have power in our society come from the ranks of the upper-class (whether economically- or socially-speaking). The remainder of us only have power collectively, within social movements.

Traditionally for the upper class, the men went to work in their own spheres while the women raised the children (often with hired help from the lower ranks) and acted in their own organizations, usually aimed at easing the symptoms of social ills. Studies show that not much has changed. So, while the husbands are off ruling the land (majority collectively through complex capitalist networks), the women go to their social clubs and organization meetings. They effect change largely through donations to help the less-privileged and by sometimes gaining mainstream media attention to their cause(s). Whether or not these women have any personal influence on the men in their lives remains an area researchers don’t have access to.

I’d much rather see elite women getting active in our government, businesses, and policy/policy-planning organizations than staying within their dainty social clubs.