Denying "Choice"

Is a woman's choice to stay home with the kids a legitimate choice?  I missed this article, "Homeward Bound," when it was published last fall in The American Prospect, but it has created quite a firestorm.  Linda Hirshman argues that the "opt out revolution," in which well-educated moms are leaving the career track to care for their children, is really a "downward spiral":

The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, “A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.”

I agree -- and my dishpan hands attest to the fact -- that household work is not the sole domain of women.  But to acknowledge a need for greater labor equity in the home and more support for child care in society is a flimsy basis for insisting that a woman's decision to stay home with young children is somehow delusional or objectively unhealthy.  Two questions for Hirshman: Is paternalism deployed within the rhetoric of feminism still properly called paternalism, or do we need a new label?  And is she really comfortable with the ramifications of suggesting that society must pierce the veil of private "choice" in order to ensure that the human person leads an objectively healthy, flourishing life?

Sunday's Washington Post published Hirshman's observations of the public reaction to her article, and Monday's Post summarized the discussions in the blogosphere.

Rob