Response to Rob / Homeward Bound

I have a host of questions about Hirshman’s definitions of “flourishing” which seems to be grounded in notions of success according to “elite workplaces” standards.  I think one of the reasons that many women “drop out” is that “success” in many those environment often implies letting work have a totalizing claim over one’s entire life—so that there is little time to nourish family or other relationship, or simply pay more than minimal attention to other aspects of one’s life.  Specifically discussing large law firms, Hirshman muses, “It is possible that the workplace is discriminatory and hostile to family life…” but then continues: “women must take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.”  Does this brand of feminism leave no room at all for a critique of the “elite workplace” structures as less than suited to full human flourishing?  It seems to be that this is also one example of how the concept of “vocation” has been high-jacked—the ground assumption is that work constitutes the entirety of one’s life and their is no meaning (or at least significant meaning) outside of one's work.  For me, all of this runs dangerously close to idolatry—not exactly the path the human flourishing, at least in CST lines.  As I’ve done some initial work on this in “The Evils of Elasticity” reflection on the “part-time” paradox, in large firm practice, which is posted under my name at the side, and now on SSRN.  Amy