When Linda Hirshman wrote about how “elite” (read: college-educated) women who stay at home with their kids frustrate feminism, it got quite a response from you all. We continue a series of profiles of moms and whether or not they fit her profile - and whether they think feminism is dead in their own lives. Tonight, Dani.

I graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Ottawa (Canada) with a Baccalaureate in Arts, concentration in Communication.  (I can hear Hirshman tutt-tutting, but yes, I have a liberal arts education. The horror!)  I'm 36 and my boys are almost four and almost two.

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a journalist.  When I dropped out of university, I was in pre-journalism (first year).  When I went back part-time four years later, I didn't have a 'career goal' per se - I was working full time for the federal government as a clerk, and going back to school was something I did because I wanted to, not because I had to.  (I quit university the first time, for whatever it's worth, mostly due to the influence of my now-ex spouse.)

Trite as it seems, I've never been a "career woman".  I work because I have to pay the bills. Turns out I am successful and respected in my workplace and considered a "high flyer" and high-potential employee - but all I ever wanted to do was be a mom.  Working is just a means to that end.

I work full time, and my husband teaches part-time and stays home with the boys part time. I am finally in my chosen field of communications, albeit with the government. I'm a senior communications advisor, in the upper-third of the government hierarchy (call me a 'policy wonk', in Hirshman's terms) one level down from the executive cadre, and content because it is a job that pays well but is quite family-friendly.

Because I'm in Canada, I had one year of maternity leave with both boys, and because I work for the federal government, I received a maternity allowance equal to 93% of my salary for the entire year, both times. Currently, I am at the most successful point in my career, both in terms of responsibility and remuneration. I have been increasing steadily, and having children hasn't interfered with my progress.

My husband has more education than me. He has a Fine Arts degree from a Canadian University, and a two-year college diploma in Animation. He makes less than half of what I make, which is why I work full time. Even if he were to get a full-time tenured position at the CEGEP (Quebec College) where he teaches, I would be making about 20 - 30% more than he does. He has more education, I make more money. Take that, Hirshman.

How do you feel you're doing in your career relative to your goals?
(laughing) Well, since I didn't have any real aspirations, I guess I'm pretty satisfied with myself! More seriously, I have exceeded my own expectations for success in that I am doing a job in the field I chose, and I can balance reasonably well the demands of my employer and the needs of my family. I make more money than I ever expected I would, and I've yet to run into any glass ceilings, nor do I see any in my immediate future.

Do you enjoy working? If you could quit, would you?
Yes, I enjoy working. Yes, I would quit if I could. In a perfect world, I would reverse the roles of my husband and me. I would work 15 hours a week or so, all flex time and out of the home on my own terms. Even with an extremely family-friendly employer, I do feel that I am sacrificing family time. But I would be a full-time writer, and handsomely paid for it at that.

Do you feel satisfied with your "choices"?
As I mentioned in my initial response to your post, I think the whole idea of choice is a myth for most of the middle class. By the latest stats, 70% of Canadian families have both parents working outside the home. I honestly don't see as how we had a lot of choices... we live paycheque to paycheque with one car, in a 1500 sq foot townhouse in the suburbs. It's plenty enough for us, but if it weren't for my husband's part-time salary, we couldn't afford a life anything like this. Me staying home was simply not a choice - we'd be barely above the poverty line on my husband's salary alone.

Having said that, I don't regret any of it, except the fact that I'd like to be able to spend more time with the boys.

Household work: who does what? Do you feel that each partner contributes fairly?
I'm very lucky. My husband takes care of mornings and getting the kids to daycare on the days he works, and does a lot of tidying and laundry on the days he is home.  He makes simple lunches for the boys when they're home, and I make dinner. (My most reviled task. I hate dinner - deciding, buying for, making. I hate all of it.) Because of my control issues from a previous marriage, I am in complete control of family finances. My husband pays for daycare and his outstanding student loans out of his cheque, and I cover the rest of it - mortgage, groceries, car payment, bills, and all the other major stuff. Savings? What savings?

How many times have you changed jobs, compared to your partner?
I've been with the same government department for almost 16 years - since I was 20.  However, I haven't been in the same position / job description for more than two or three years. He finished school four years ago, and is already on his second career as a teacher - the job as an animator fell through when the bottom dropped out of the industry here.

Hirshman talks a lot about "social power" and relative status/power/age when men and women marry. Say a little about your and your partner's balance of power.
As you've seen, my husband and I are a mirror of the stereotypical family. I'm (mostly) the breadwinner, he's (mostly) home with the boys. Neither of us come from money or status but rather humble backgrounds. We're both the first in our families to graduate from university. So, my entire existence flies in the face of Hirshman's assumptions. I'm the boss, frankly. My husband defers to me in almost all areas of child-rearing, financial and household decisions, but I think that has more to do with our personalities (I'm bossy, he's laid-back) than any artificial social construct.

In your opinion, why aren't there more women in "executive suites" and in other powerful positions? Do you ever imagine yourself there?
Frankly, I don't see why women need to be in executive suites in order to prove feminism as a movement is successful.

And no, I don't ever see myself there. It's not what I ever wanted for myself. I only want to work as hard as I need to, not as hard as I can. My life begins at 4 pm.

Hirshman said, "The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, "A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.""
I couldn't disagree with this statement more. Aside from my obvious bias to the value and importance of childrearing, how can the "decision-making classes -- the senators, the newspaper editors, the research scientists, the entrepreneurs, the policy-makers, and the policy wonks" be making any more valuable contribution to society than the formation of the NEXT generation of decision-making classes?

Because I spend all day working with senior executives in government, I know for the most part what they do during the day, and quite frankly I think the three hours a day I spend with my children is far more valuable, more fulfilling and more interesting than the 12 hours they spend doing their senior-executive schtick. After spending the last two days in mind-numbing meetings with top-level government executives arguing minutia and shuffling papers, I can't see how that provides any better opportunity for a human being to flourish than vacuuming the living room rug.

At least when you've vacuumed, the rug is clean - I can't say we've achieved even that much in the past two days.

"Never figure out where the butter is. "Where's the butter?" Nora Ephron's legendary riff on marriage begins. In it, a man asks the question when looking directly at the butter container in the refrigerator. "Where's the butter?" actually means butter my toast, buy the butter, remember when we're out of butter. Next thing you know you're quitting your job at the law firm because you're so busy managing the butter."
All I have to say to this one is, life is what you make it. You don't like it, train your husband better. I did.

"Have a baby. Just don't have two... A second kid pressures the mother's organizational skills, doubles the demands for appointments, wildly raises the cost of education and housing, and drives the family to the suburbs. But cities, with their Chinese carryouts and all, are better for working mothers."
Another completely bogus statement, says the working mother of two living happily in the suburbs. If you quantify your decisions about having children solely on things that make life easier for you, working woman or not, you'd better quit at zero.

Duh, kids are demanding. You need to be a graduate of an elite college to figure this out?

"what [the NYT brides] do is ... bad for society, and is widely imitated... This last is called the "regime effect," and it means that even if women don't quit their jobs for their families, they think they should and feel guilty about not doing it."
Okay, this is one I'm going to give a minor concession to Hirshman on, but only insomuch as the mommy guilt IS prevalent, and can be crippling - but it's opinions like hers that reinforce the stereotypes that cause mothers to stew in their own guilt.

Hirshman says, 'Good psychological data show that the more women are treated with respect, the more ambition they have. And vice versa. The opt-out revolution is really a downward spiral.'
I guess I'm an anomaly on this one. I've got plenty of self-respect, and have been told my whole life there is nothing I can't do. And while I am pleased to be a successful professional, I would never consider myself ambitious. Ambition has become a dirty word - call me a self-starter, energetic, a high flyer, but don't call me ambitious.

And how exactly is Hirshman treating women with respect by accusing them of opting out when they prioritize their families over financial gain?

Born in 1969, I guess I'm a second generation feminist, and the simple fact that I've become a woman in a position of moderate power, financially capable of supporting my own family without sacrificing personal balance, is exactly how feminism IS working today. I'm not rabid about my rights and choices as a woman, but there was never any doubt in my mind as a child or subsequently that I was capable of doing whatever I wanted and achieving anything I set my mind to. THAT's what feminism and equality mean to me. While I may gripe about it, while I might daydream of a sugar-daddy or a lotto win or some other magical force to take me out of the daily grind of the workplace, at the end of the day I can fall asleep each night knowing I have done right by my boys, by my husband and most importantly, by my own standards. </rant>

It just drives me endlessly insane to see these categories being invented in much the way marketers create needs, then market products to satisfy those needs. Castigating mothers for choosing to stay home is no better than castigating mothers who have to work.