This article by Virginia Haussegger makes a lot of good sense. I concur with a lot that is said here; as a result of my experiences of working and forming relationships, with women who have independent and successful careers and who have their roots in, and their identity formed by second wave feminism.

Virginia says that these women have found themselves in a situation where they find themselves "independent, successful, solid careers, nearing 40, childless, many partnerless and wondering what went wrong." And second wave feminism had a very strong anti-motherhood message: it said that being a mother was a major obstacle to any girl reaching her full potential in a man's world. Trying to be both mother and careerist was equivalent to being run ragged from trying to fit two jobs into one; run ragged because the men would not pull their weight in terms of household duties.

Liberal feminism was interpreted by those aspiring to be corporate woman as having to take on the men and doing this in a masculine way. It required becoming a worker who is independent, autonomous and free from domestic responsibilities. Femocrats in other words.

Virginia is quite right to ask: where is the feminism in this interpretation of liberal feminism? My experience is that corporate woman dumps the feminism for the highflying success and embraces inequality whilst doing so. She highlights similarity and downplays difference, thinks that the unemployed should get on their bicycles and get a job, and presumes that men are there to provide a service.

Its all pretty much a reversal of the traditional role rather than a equal sharing or partnership. This is a particular twist to liberal feminism; a much narrow class than the broader middle class perspective of Virginia Haussegger. But some of the corporate women were able to have a career and be a mother. They earned enough to be able to buy the motherhood services. I don't know what they did with the guilt though.