Radical Homemakers (4) Some niggling issues
Wherever there are radical ideas there are nay sayers and vituperative opposition. Radical Homemakers is not for everyone. This goes without saying. Not everyone aspires to living on less, environmental sustainability, doing instead of buying. But no one is saying you have to. I take issue with those who claim that writers like Hayes, and those of us who chose to stay at home to raise young children are putting feminism back, or that those who desire to make their own jam are trying to live back in the 1750s, rejecting the whole of the modern world. The way we live now, that society currently deems “normal” is not sustainable, nor acheivable for the majority of the world’s population. Radical Homemakers are exploring a different way, looking both backwards and forwards, and putting human and ecological values before consumerism. This I wholeheartedly support and endorse.
However, there are elements of the book I am less comfortable with. So, having jumped up and down with delight for four posts on the wonder that is Radical Homemakers I will now raise some issues. It would not be fair of me to lavish so much praise on a book, which though it has generally been extremely well-received, has received some major criticisms amongst its target audience…including:
*It is too America-centric: not good for a book that is being marketed to a world wide audience
*Many have complained of it being dense, heavy reading – I did not find this
*Some of her sources, especially Freidan and Korten are over-relied upon, a number of them also provide glowing testimonials
*Some object to her selective reading of history
*A number object that the path she suggests is really only an option for middle-class people, those with some savings, supportive family or family-owned rural acres…
Tiffany at Nature Moms expresses this very well: “There was one area of the book I really did not like. It makes a case for why we might want to forgo the healthcare system and traditional health insurance and all the reasons why. That was all good and fine and it did seem to make exceptions for children. Then in the next breath it condoned choosing to stay at home and not seek out employment to cover these costs and instead sign up for Medicaid. That whole section just rubbed me the wrong way but I fully admit I am not so liberal in my views on welfare and healthcare. Then a few pages after that it makes an argument for why it is perfectly okay to live off welfare.
Read the whole series…
Book Review
Part One- Beyond Housewives and Feminism
Part Two – Value beyond Money
Part Three – Dispelling the Myth of Self Sufficiency
Totally agree. How can one been totally self sufficient and not rely on handouts from the state?? but it IS possible. When your income drops you just drop your outgoings. Children can be taught from an early age of what is and what is not important so they dont feel they are going without, and you live within your means. It is possible to do. You just ‘cut your cloth’ as the saying goes.
Hi – Thanks for dropping by and reading my review on Radical Homemakers.
As discussed in my review, I thought the book was poorly researched, and full of shoddy scholarship. In short, a great idea done shockingly badly.
I gave it 1 star on my Amazon review, and it seems a lot of people do agree with me, when they took the time to follow up on Hayes’ so-called “sources”, which is something I always do when reading a book posing as scholarship.
I loved the premise of the book, it’s just a real shame Hayes followed through so poorly.
I can understand why some people would like the book, because it does attempt to justify the lifestyle I, and so many others, lead. But I’d have preferred a decent attempt at analysis, rather than this dodgy effort. I’d like to see some genuine scholar, such as Naomi Klein (for example), tackle the subject, and do it properly.
Cheers.
I had some of the same concerns–and several others–about this book. As I wrote in my review, I generally agree with most of Hayes’ core ideas, but I couldn’t get past the huge problems with this book.
The research is shoddy, the historical interpretation highly questionable, the arguments in favor of accepting government and family aid unconvincing, and the book came off as preachy and privileged.
I think this is such an important topic; I sincerely hope another author will give it the treatment it deserves.