This quandary is interesting in light of Linda Hirshman's recent advice to women who want to stay in the labor force: Have a child, just don't have two, she tells women in her book *Get to Work.* While I'm not so sure that the single-child family is the ultimate solution to the work/life crunch (it's companies, not American family size, that clearly need to change in my opinion), there's no doubt that life is easier for the working woman who just has one. I can't speak (yet) from personal experience, but I'm pretty sure that my friends who have more than one would agree. Is it possible that, after all these years, women who choose to have an only because they want to continue with their careers are still seen as somehow "selfish"? Is this what the stigma is still partly about?
Last week's Boxer-Rice exchange makes me realize all the more the furor around those who chose to have none. Boxer's comments about how Rice is not paying the direct price for the Iraq war (as measured in lost children) was quickly spun as unsisterly speculation about Rice's childless, unmarried life. Since I'm generally a fan of Boxer's, I'm loathe to believe she was going for the jugular in the way all the spin suggested. And having just turned in a book on feminist in-fighting, the rush to turn this into a catfight made me, well, tired. But I did perk up when I read that Condi (regardless of how I feel about her) was also an only. As Broadsheet reminds us today,
in December, First Lady Laura Bush told People magazine that Rice probably wouldn't run for president, in part because she is single and has no immediate family. "Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate [for president], is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job."
So, wait, an only child can never be President? Hmm... Not so sure about that.