The problem with Hirschman's latest book is that she accepts a completely patriarchal definition of "work". "Work" (or "abstract labour" to use the term that's thrown around in the academic literature) is defined specifically to exclude anything traditionally done by women, while including just about everything traditionally done by men. In so doing, it creates a warped picture of what "work" actually is. If we define work as any socially useful task (as opposed to only those tasks that lead to immediate profits in the short term), then it's hard to escape the conclusion that "women's work" is a lot more valuable than a lot of "men's work" (or "work", as it's commonly called).

Based on her interview with Stephen Colbert a few weeks back, it seems that Hirschman believes that ANYTHING outside the home is a superior and better choice than anything in it, which kind of reminds me of George Carlin's bit on corporate-oriented feminism ("But what's the alternative to 'poppin' out a unit' every 9 months? Pointless careerism? Wearing a man-tailored suit in a criminal corporation that screws its employees and robs its customers and destroys the environment and emulating the most objectionable behaviours of men?").

One of the principal problems with pre-feminist gender roles was that there was no end of accepted life paths for men, but only one for each and every woman on the planet. Any feminism worthy of the name is about creating a world in which women are free to seek fulfilment however and wherever they want.