Great, valid point. . . but can you give some examples that we'd all know of women famous for doing "women's work"? Maybe Anne Sullivan (Helen Keller's teacher)?

Manufactured outrage at its best. Your examples of women's work that could be lauded: cooking, cleaning and nurturing are hardly comparable to the work of writers, athletes and scientists. What, we should have a Best-Cleaner-of-the-House award? Or Mom-of-the-Year Nobel?

Why don't you look at this as exceptional women entering professions/avocations that were male-dominated and female-restricted and celebrate them for that? Oh, that's what Women's History Month is about...

Another examples of this phenomenon (celebrating women/girls who excel in "masculine" fields, while ignoring the value of "feminine" fields) is the push to get more girls into STEM. Yes, those are good, high-paying jobs. But why are the fields where women dominate so low-paying? I would like us to work to get girls into STEM careers, while working to raise the wages and respect accorded to teaching pre-school, working in non-profits, providing hospice care, and managing a case load.

If we're going to get angry about something, how about the fact that "Rosie the Riveter" ISN'T AN ACTUAL PERSON? Yes, it's unfair that so-called "women's work" is treated as inherently less valuable than "men's work," and that is certainly something that needs to be addressed, but at the same time, choosing women to laud who were "good cooks, care givers, or educators of children" would likely get them blasted for holding to stereotypes of what women should be doing.

Meanwhile: Rosie the Riveter, ARCHETYPE? You couldn't find an ACTUAL WOMAN who did remarkable things during the war?

There is definitely a case to be made for history lessons that eplore the experiences of ordinary proletarians rather than singling out the famous and exceptional. However, that argument would apply as much to male subjects as female ones.

It's true, we don't take much time to celebrate the lives of great cooks or nurses or teachers (though Julia Child and Maria Montessori or Florence Nightingale would all fit neatly into this deck of cards). We also don't take much time to celebrate the lives of great police officers, bus drivers, or construction workers, among countless other "masculine"-coded professions, so I don't think this tells us anything about the relative value of femininity or masculinity.

Rather, I think this is an example of how our culture tends to value individualism over collectivism, emphasizing exceptional and prominent figures rather than acknowledging the collaborative achievements of groups and communities. Our narrative of the Women's Suffrage movement prefers to tell the stories of Alice Paul or Susan B. Anthony rather than the investigating the lives of any of the thousands of women who endured violence and risked arrest and social ostracism to fight for the cause. Even when presenting the viewpoint of wartime factory workers, this campaign prefers to show us a fictional archetype, rather than condescend to telling the life story of a commoner.

Sure, you could say that women have been historically excluded from roles that lead to prominence, and you'd be quite right. But that is the obvious subtext of the WHM selection already.

Hard to imagine a list of notables Hilary wouldn't fit well in.

What would Riane Eisler say?

Just wanted to share with you this statue of which the last picture reminded me of. It's called The Working Mother and located in Helsinki, Finland.

wow, I see Laurel Westwood wrote this last Marrch. Someone just posted it to Woman's Work Goes On, a Facebook discussion group started in the spirit of her article.