On a recent roadtrip I tuned in to the Michael Medved show. I like his show because he's conservative but he's even-handed in his treatment of most subjects. Well, on this day his guest set my blood to boiling. He interviewed Linda Hirshman about her new book, "Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World."

I was so incensed I was driving down the highway hitting redial on my phone trying to get in to make a comment. I was swerving and dialing. Not a safe combination. About halfway through the program Mr. Medved said to quit calling because the lines were so jammed there was no way to get through. I guess I wasn't the only stay-at-home Mom with an opinion.

Mr. Medved first asked if the choice for the cover of the book was intentional. The cover is a small, plain red cover with the title printed plainly. It bears a striking resemblance to the original cover of "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx. She claimed that the publisher chose the cover and she had nothing to do with the decision. That may be the case but the publisher knew exactly what it was doing. She then went on to claim that she certainly wasn't advocating communism in the book. Well, she may not outright advocate communism but she is certainly socialistic in her views. In her book Ms. Hirshman states:

"Bounding home is not good for women and it's not good for the society. They aren't using their capacities fully; their so-called free choice makes them unfree dependents on their husbands. Whether they leave the workplace altogether or just cut back their commitment, their talent and education are lost from the public world to the private world of laundry and kissing boo-boos. The abandonment of the public world by women at the top means the ruling class is overwhelmingly male. If the rulers are male, they will make mistakes that benefit males. Picture an all-male Supreme Court. We may well go back there. What will that mean for the women of America?
Educated women opting out and working mothers throughout society doing 70 percent of the housework reveals a hard truth. For all its achievements, feminism cannot make more progress, private or public, until it turns its spotlight on the family. Child care and housekeeping have satisfying moments but are not occupations likely to produce a flourishing life. Gender ideology places these tasks on women's backs; women must demand redistribution. "

She is advocating socialism. Look at the first line of the quote "...and it's not good for the society." She is proposing that I should subjugate my desires and choices to what is good for society. That is classic socialism. The good of the individual is subordinate to the good of society.

Let me take it one step further. Not only do I take issue with her basic motive but I also disagree with her conclusion. "Bounding home" is good for women and for society. The working mothers and fathers I know are exhausted. They are scattered and overwhelmed. I feel for the working mothers I know. I don't know how they manage to do it. Oh, and by the way, I know of two families where the fathers stay at home or took part time work to be home with the children more. So, her argument that the majority of household work falls on the woman is simply hogwash.

I don't know how old she is, but on the phone she sounded in her late 50s or early 60s. She needs to talk to the young women of today. Most of the working women I talk to have husbands that help around the house. The marriages of today are not the marriages of yesterday. Everyone pitches in, everyone helps.

I get so tired of the feminist left telling me what I should do. I have made my choice thoughtfully and have never regretted the decision I made. They just don't like the choice that I have made. Well, tough petutti, it's my decision.