Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture by Shannon Hayes

Nov 02, 2010 Kristin rated it it was ok

Shelves: non-fiction, my-40th-year, simple-living

I really expected to like this book, but it had so many glaring flaws I just couldn't. For one thing, it needs a different title. As others have already pointed out, it should be called Radical Homesteading because that is what the book is really about (although the "radical" is extraneous since it's pretty much exactly what homesteaders do, not just the "radical" ones). If your parents don't already have a farm you can live on and/or you have no interest in rural life, there's nothing here for I really expected to like this book, but it had so many glaring flaws I just couldn't. For one thing, it needs a different title. As others have already pointed out, it should be called Radical Homesteading because that is what the book is really about (although the "radical" is extraneous since it's pretty much exactly what homesteaders do, not just the "radical" ones). If your parents don't already have a farm you can live on and/or you have no interest in rural life, there's nothing here for you. Even if you buy into what she is saying and want this life for yourself and your family, the book offers no practical suggestions for achieving it--again, unless you come from a family who will give you land, or is willing to pay your bills while you remove yourself from the "extractive economy".

The book is divided into two parts. Part one is entitled "Why" and part two is entitled "How", but Hayes never actually delivers on the how. She, and most of the people she interviewed either live on land provided to them by their parents from a family farm or are having some portion of their bills paid by their families (student loans, health insurance, etc.).

She makes some good points here and there--in fact I'd say overall I agree with of her core ideas-- but the historical interpretation is questionable at best, the whole thing is poorly researched and written, and in the end it really never offers any practical advice. The good points she does make have all been made before--by far better writers. Additionally, it comes off as preachy and privileged with it's all-or-nothing stance.

Hayes seems completely blind to her own privilege. The vast majority of the people in the book, Hayes included, have college degrees and come from solidly middle class backgrounds. There is a lot of talk about how unimportant income is to them, yet most of the people in the book have household incomes which put them in the third income quintile in the US (based on the figures from 2005) and some are in the fourth quintile or higher. (Interestingly, the income from the family in which one parent is a medical doctor is not given.) Nearly all are well above the poverty line. There is a complete lack of recognition for the fact it is much easier to be unconcerned about income when your income is large enough to sustain yourself and your family.

Hayes is correct our culture is overrun by consumerism and far too many people fail to understand the real cost of what they own (or even want to own). However, she misses the opportunity to educated people about making better, more life-sustaining choices by presenting the options as a strict either/or. Although she backpedals a bit at the very end of the book, her philosophy is largely presented as an all-or-nothing proposition. If you aren't growing all your own food on your family farm while homeschooling your children, you and your spouse must be working a 60+ hour a week at jobs you hate so together you can earn the six figure income it requires to afford a McMansion in the suburbs and two brand new cars while sticking your kids in daycare and eating all of your meals out of take-out bags in front of the tv. She blatantly ignores the fact, statistically speaking, very few people are actually living that life.

I also found it interesting Hayes encouraged readers to turn their backs on the "extractive economy" and live off the land, but she was fine with people taking money from family members who worked at jobs which were part of the same system they were eschewing. I was also a bit baffled by the rationalizations of the families who turned their backs on the "extractive economy" to become self-sustaining units of production, but then sought out and accepted government aid.

I won't take the time to point out all of the nonsense (asthma caused by working parents, homeschooling to avoid E. coli, pre-industrial life re-envisioned as utopia, etc.), since several other reviewers have already done so.

I was surprised by how much I disliked this book. When it was suggested for our book group I was really excited to read it. But unfortunately it just didn't deliver. Even if you are already a true believer, there isn't much here for you.

The core ideas behind this book are important and certainly ripe for discussion in our current culture. But, they need to be supported by adequate research and practical solutions which can be implemented by those who aren't living on their family's farm.

...more

flag 51 likes · Like · see review

Feb 08, 2011 Katie rated it it was ok

I expected to like this book more than I did. While the author's imperious tone irritated me from the first page, I mostly agree with the principles behind so-called "radical homemaking" and aspire to do much of the stuff the people described in this book do. But there are a number of problems with this book, and unfortunately they marred the whole thing.

First there's the phenomenon I refer to as "I accidentally a homestead!" I read books like this and I'm thinking alright, cool, yeah, I'd love I expected to like this book more than I did. While the author's imperious tone irritated me from the first page, I mostly agree with the principles behind so-called "radical homemaking" and aspire to do much of the stuff the people described in this book do. But there are a number of problems with this book, and unfortunately they marred the whole thing.

First there's the phenomenon I refer to as "I accidentally a homestead!" I read books like this and I'm thinking alright, cool, yeah, I'd love to do this, I'd love to do that. Goats, chickens, sure, yeah, I could do that. Now. The land. How on earth did you get all that land? I mean that stuff's expensive and you don't work a regular job. So. The land? Hello? And inevitably the answer comes back, in a sort of muttered sotto voce, "oh yeah I uh well I own my house and land outright because I got a little bit of an inheritance." A little bit, eh? Or "uh well actually I live on my parents' vast land holdings." Ahhhh. I see. And because you don't make a lot of money you say you're just an average Joe. Except that the average Joe does not come from land-owning gentry.

This is related to another disturbing trend in this book in particular. While working for "the man" is to be eschewed by the (typically female) radical homemaker and perhaps even her spouse, time and time again people speak of relying upon the resources of friends and family who ARE working for "the man." Like someone's parents bought her corporate health insurance (which many of the other radicals, alarmingly, are "boycotting.") A lot of people were gifted large sums or parcels of land, or receive free childcare and other perks from families. A few spoke of not needing insurance because their "network" of people is their insurance. What on earth could that mean except that "if Sally gets in an accident, we'll all have to bail her out"?

Between those two problems, I started to see this whole trend as a kind of back-to-the-land trustifarianism, a 30-something way of "slumming."

Finally, while much is made of the environmental and societal advantages the author purports shall come of more and more people living this lifestyle (it seems the ideal is for everyone to be a radical homesteader of some sort) and how it will combat narcissistic individualism and save the planet, I think just the opposite could sadly be true. It is not sustainable for every small family to have its own piece of land, sufficient for livestock and a sustenance garden. There is just not enough appropriate land for this to be done. Not to mention, living in the sticks means a lot of driving--I noticed none of the families were able to go completely car-free, yet cars are one of the greatest banes of the environment, and any New Yorker, San Franciscan, Seattlite, or urban Portlander can easily live a full and hearty 90 years without ever once sitting behind the wheel. Many experts say that better urban planning is the way to go, rather than everyone going "back to the land," and I would have to agree. ...more

flag 31 likes · Like · see review

Dec 22, 2010 Eileen rated it it was ok

Shelves: craft

In a way I hate to say it, since I agree with about 70% of the practices mentioned, but this book is deeply problematic and intellectually questionable.

I expected this to fall into the how-to genre, discussing various practices people use when trying to construct a life outside US cultural norms. When it turned out to be more of a sociological study of twenty individuals (note: that's your sample size?), I was a little disconcerted, but, you know, ok. Let's read it and see how it goes. Well, it In a way I hate to say it, since I agree with about 70% of the practices mentioned, but this book is deeply problematic and intellectually questionable.

I expected this to fall into the how-to genre, discussing various practices people use when trying to construct a life outside US cultural norms. When it turned out to be more of a sociological study of twenty individuals (note: that's your sample size?), I was a little disconcerted, but, you know, ok. Let's read it and see how it goes. Well, it goes poorly. Like Wile E. Coyote, the author strings along an underlying bias, constantly undermining her argument through obvious personal involvement. When, at the very end, she exhorts others to join in the radical homemaking way of life, she pushes the trigger, and the book explodes.

The author has complained online about the critical response to her book, citing "the internet" as the problem. Now, ok. Certainly people are more able and likely to communicate opinions through the internet than they were even ten years ago. (We can discuss the irony of her internet-based response later.) However, I can't imagine that the intellectual community--which she does not seem to be part of, especially since the book was published on her family's independent press--would be any less harsh when putting this book up to a real peer review. Flatly, you cannot expect your conclusions to be taken seriously when your analysis has such a pervasive bias.

A few points re subject matter:

- A great amount of meticulous research went into this book. I do want to know what other people are doing to change their lives and their communities in the contemporary US, and this book tries to answer that question. Though you clearly have to keep a constant eye out for bias, the findings can be interesting, and there are plenty of them.

- Of the book's two main sections, the first ("Why," i.e. historical background) appears less biased, and the second ("How," i.e. people's current experience) seems more so. This makes the book less valuable to me overall, as I already have a reasonable grasp on western social development, but hey! Maybe you weren't a history major.

- While it's great to examine how people are using traditional practices, reordering their lives to escape consumer culture, etc., I have to draw a line at health care. I find it astoundingly irresponsible to present the concept of eschewing health insurance as a positive. Dude, we live in the US. The health care system is bad and we all know it. People go broke paying for insurance, and extra broke when they get sick. Yes, the system needs a big change, but don't chirp about homeopathy and folk remedies as viable alternatives. Just don't. It's dangerous.

- The prose occasionally has a creepy religious or conversion-oriented tone. Language like this sets off alarms in my head. For instance, the author often repeats the phrase, "honor[s] the four tenets of ecological sustainability, social justice, family and community." (Just try to ignore the missing serial comma.) While eventually it becomes clear that these four points are based on the UN-spawned Earth Charter of 2000, the language is far more in line with ritual. How about this one: "Home is where the great change will begin." Where is Karl Marx when you need him? More specifically, how do you want to be convincing? Do you want to present a clear argument using evidence to convince readers of your point, or do you want to appeal to emotion, identity, and politics? Ugh.

With all these problems, I can't take the book seriously. Not recommended. ...more

flag 21 likes · Like · see review

Sep 19, 2010 Joy Lanzendorfer rated it did not like it

I expected to like this book because it is very much along the lines of how I think and live my life. However, this book is awful. I would go so far as to question whether Shannon Hayes should be writing books. She doesn't know how to research and she doesn't know how to write, and as such, the book is repetitive and reads like a PhD thesis. I don't know how anyone can take such a passionate subject and make it so dry and unpleasant.

Radical Homemakers is riddled with errors and assumptions. I ha ...more

flag 15 likes · Like · see review

May 01, 2011 Anita Dalton rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, work-issues, counter-culture, cultural-studies, books-we-own

Overall, I found this to be a pretty interesting look at a counter-cultural approach to living. Downshifters are nothing new, as this topic has been discussed in depth in many different books ever since the back to the land movement in the 1960s, but this updated look at this movement is definitely relevant. There are a couple of issues I don't think the author dealt with. One is that it would appear that most of those interviewed, as well as the author, live in rural New England. I think the bo Overall, I found this to be a pretty interesting look at a counter-cultural approach to living. Downshifters are nothing new, as this topic has been discussed in depth in many different books ever since the back to the land movement in the 1960s, but this updated look at this movement is definitely relevant. There are a couple of issues I don't think the author dealt with. One is that it would appear that most of those interviewed, as well as the author, live in rural New England. I think the book would have benefited had folks from the Southwest and South in general been interviewed because there are vast difference in rents, cost of living, and public transport availability between New England and places like Texas and Oklahoma.

Second, I was a bit taken aback with the author's dismissal for the need for health insurance. No doubt there are problems with the American health care system and no doubt health care insurance is prohibitive in cost for many families. The author's sense that obtaining exercise and eating very healthy food can eliminate many needs for health care makes sense on one level. Americans often live very unhealthy lives and eating better and obtaining proper exercise can eliminate some needs for medical care. Families that homeschool will also reduce the number of bugs brought into the home. I also appreciate the sort of fearlessness it takes to make such a decision. But it is troublesome to realize that the cost of being a radical home maker may mean exposing one's self to dreadful harm. Good food won't prevent genetically-linked cancers. Exercise won't make people bullet-proof, nor will it reduce the damage a human body receives if it is hit by a car. I really wish more attention had been paid to the idea that radical homemaking can leave families open to financial catastrophe or the very real possibility a family member could not afford life-saving medical care. This is a hard reality of living outside the realm of traditional paid work and it needs exploration. I would have given this book five stars had the author talked to a family whose child had cancer or kidney failure and showed how they managed or did not manage. ...more

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

Aug 22, 2011 Meghan rated it liked it

Shelves: feminism, farming, food, nonfiction

"Success, in our country, is now defined by money earned, by promotions, by continuous servitude to an employer... Our gauge of success and personal worth has become so reliant on external validation that women and men now find it difficult to believe that a life centered around the home can satisfy their needs for personal fulfillment and genuine achievement." Or, as written in 1870: "Bright women should aspire, and drudges should keep the home fires burning." Yo.

"Our actual needs are so much l "Success, in our country, is now defined by money earned, by promotions, by continuous servitude to an employer... Our gauge of success and personal worth has become so reliant on external validation that women and men now find it difficult to believe that a life centered around the home can satisfy their needs for personal fulfillment and genuine achievement." Or, as written in 1870: "Bright women should aspire, and drudges should keep the home fires burning." Yo.

"Our actual needs are so much larger emotionally and so much smaller materially." Yes.

But for every eloquent statement like that, or for every disturbing fact about the insanity of six companies controlling 98% of world seed sales, there was also a morally righteous quote from one of the radical homemaking interviewees about their neighbors' lives of quiet misery and desperation. Everyone makes their own choices, you know? It's tough to think that most of the rest of the United States is living in a crazy way that will ultimately not lead to a satisfying, happy life, but there is a medium ground between working 60 hours with an insane commute and eating fast food every day and, say, living on the farm and bartering for dental care.

I had a strong reaction to the lines of thinking espoused in this book, and at the end I was left with a lot of ambivalence. For every argument that I found interesting, there was one that was poorly thought through and that relied on generalizations.

Criticisms:
The author relies on too few sources.

The people she interviews are predominantly white people from New England who have families that support them through donations of money and land.

The author tries to argue that parents who commute to an office job directly cause their children's allergies and asthma because their commuting and office jobs take focus away from the health of their families. (p. 120)

Relatedly, saying that "we buy prescription drugs when we no longer have time to take care of our health and get ample rest" (p. 61) is a gross generalization and denies the existence of actual illnesses that can't be cured with fresh air and local foods and exercise.

I buy into the argument that individuals should structure their decisions about how to live by thinking about what's best for their family and community, and what contributes to social justice and the health of the planet. The more you delve into what that means, however, the more it becomes clear that it is a radical choice in this culture (hence the book title). It means trading away what we think of as our security, whether that is dual incomes, health insurance, or a hefty retirement fund. What you trade that security in for is time and attention and focus. And trust, really, the trust that your needs will be met and that you won't end up living on the streets when you're old.

...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Dec 09, 2010 Flat rated it really liked it

Shelves: and, parenting, family-studies

Hayes has a B.A. in creative writing and advanced degrees in sustainable agriculture, so I guess you can't be too surprised to find that she isn't that great a writer and has a weak grasp of economics. She never examines the singular reason why the nuclear family is often no longer able to subsist with just one breadwinner: namely, the government spending that leads to rising taxation and inflation. Consumerism and feminism have certainly impacted women's decisions to enter the workforce, but I ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Aug 02, 2011 Stephanie rated it liked it

Shelves: nonfiction, 2011, hippieness

The beginning of this book is a case for why we need to bring back the homemaker and return to being a culture of people who create rather than consume. That part had me cheering and phoning up friends to read quotes to them.

But then she got into the "hows" and . . . I loved that less. Many of the people she holds up as examples have taken themselves much farther off the grid than I could go (especially if I wanted my husband to come with me). We're talking not having health insurance, not havi ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Mar 14, 2010 Gail Williams rated it it was amazing

I loved this book. It wasn't a how-to book as in how to go live off the grid with your chickens and homemade soap (although admittedly I'd love to do exactly that). It was more the stories of various people, single and married, with and without children, who are bucking against the Western culture of consumerism and individualism. The first half of the book consisted of author Shannon Hayes explaining how our culture got this way via the Industrial Revolution, and then later as advertising becam ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

May 08, 2010 Lisa rated it did not like it

Recommended to Lisa by: Brain, Child magazine

Shelves: nonfiction

Someone described this book as one for "validation" rather than "inspiration," and that certainly is the case. Hayes is arguing for an alternative lifestyle choice in which homemaking skills (gardening, cooking, sewing, knitting, raising small livestock, etc) and living simply are paramount. However, she also argues strongly against anything that does not conform to her ideal.

For example, Hayes frequently asserts that Radical Homemakers eschew six-figure incomes, arguing that people who earn mo Someone described this book as one for "validation" rather than "inspiration," and that certainly is the case. Hayes is arguing for an alternative lifestyle choice in which homemaking skills (gardening, cooking, sewing, knitting, raising small livestock, etc) and living simply are paramount. However, she also argues strongly against anything that does not conform to her ideal.

For example, Hayes frequently asserts that Radical Homemakers eschew six-figure incomes, arguing that people who earn more spend more. While it is often true that people with large incomes spend more money, she does not acknowledge that it is possible to be in a higher income bracket and still pursue a more sustainable lifestyle through gardening, home cooking, and frugality. It is not clear if a balance between say, a part-time job and homemaking isn't radical enough, or if Hayes views the lifestyle as an all-or-nothing proposition. She also seems to exaggerate the argument, because families with six-figure incomes are not nearly as common as she seems to indicate in her book.

In addition, rather than advocate for her radical homemaking ideal as a good lifestyle choice, she insists that it is the only lifestyle choice that is "good," because, as she sees it, "those who achieve their wealth and success 'independently' through the conventions of the extractive economy are ultimately reliant upon someone's labors or have exploited some other resource" (206). And yet, some of the Radical Homemakers have spouses who work a conventional full-time job or rely on money from family members who, in most cases, made that money through conventional full-time jobs. It would seem that some Radical Homemakers were "ultimately reliant upon someone's labors" too--but somehow Hayes considers that good. Apparently it's ok to exploit another resource second-hand, so long as one doesn't do it directly.

Another serious shortcoming is that much of the book presents opinion as fact. Her first section presents a reasonably well-researched discussion of historical homemaking, but her second section relies heavily on quotes from informants that are in turn used to support some point she wants to make. If she wants to demonstrate how unusual and alternative she believes this lifestyle to be, she quotes people who say their neighbors or family thought they were weird for growing a large garden. (I continue to find this ironic, because nearly all my friends and family have grown large gardens, canned food, and many people in my suburban Denver neighborhood also have gardens. There's nothing unusual about it.) Another section on education goes on at length about education but presents no statistical data to back up her claims. Her evidence consists almost entirely of quotes from her informants.

In addition, she frequently mistakes correlation for causation. For example, one informant comments that his brother works a lot of hours at a high-level job, but that two of his brother's children have asthma and allergies. The implication is that the family doesn't eat well, though what the family did eat is left to the imagination. Besides which, even if one member of a household works long hours, that doesn't necessarily translate into a poor diet. Even more importantly, a poor diet does not cause allergies, and a good diet doesn't necessarily prevent allergies. Likewise, being in a larger income bracket does not mean that one cannot live frugally or engage in the homemaking activities Hayes promotes.

The Brain, Child review of this book, published in their March 2010 issue, suggests this is a good read if you're interested in understanding the perspective. It's an equally good read if you believe you are living this lifestyle and are looking for validation. However, if you're looking for inspiration about living more sustainably or urban homesteading and don't want to feel judged if you say, send your kids to public school or own two cars or make more than $40k or any number of other things which Hayes criticizes, definitely pick a different book. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Dec 20, 2012 Jennifer rated it did not like it

My boss asked me to read this. Otherwise, I never would have picked it up off the shelf. It is a miracle I never threw it across the room. I was reading this at the same time I was reading Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. If I thought Barbara Kingsolver was slightly preachy, then Shannon Hayes qualifies as a cult leader. The goal of 'Radical Homemaking,' repeated at least once per chapter, is to "make family, community, social justice, and the health of the planet the governing principles of their li My boss asked me to read this. Otherwise, I never would have picked it up off the shelf. It is a miracle I never threw it across the room. I was reading this at the same time I was reading Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. If I thought Barbara Kingsolver was slightly preachy, then Shannon Hayes qualifies as a cult leader. The goal of 'Radical Homemaking,' repeated at least once per chapter, is to "make family, community, social justice, and the health of the planet the governing principles of their lives." What does that mean? I'm not really sure. She spent 255 pages (excluding the biographies at the end) talking about how money is bad, nobody needs nice things, and implying that only 'Radical Homemakers' know how to cook a meal. She was continuously harping on how bad corporate health care is. Yes, it is expensive and we all know the system needs improvement. However, considering how many people would give anything to have health care, if you can afford it and are passing it up because they hurt your feelings, that's simply irresponsible. And don't get me started on her love affair with home schooling. My favorite part was the paragraph where Hayes pretty much admitted most of the people in her study are hardly 'RH's' per her definition.
"The Honeywells, the Simmons and the Ianellis all had extended families with significant land resources. The Jansens'...family helped them make the downpayment on their home. Penelope and John Sloan received an early inheritance from his parents...Maryann Heslier's husband is a salaried college professor. David Peterson and Michael Mills have wives with well-paid jobs. Nance Klehm's parents have picked up her health insurance tab."
I can understand some of what is discussed in the book. After all, I left a high paying job for one I enjoy, I ride my bike as often as I can, and avoid fast food as much as possible. But there is a fine line between being radical and being a freak show. Hayes is dangerously close to crossing, if she has not already.
...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 29, 2010 Melissa rated it really liked it

I'm reading this book right now, very slowly, and struggling through it. I have a creative life, but it's an urban life, and oh, I happen to need health insurance. No, I mean, I have conditions, and I really, really need big corporate health insurance. But the stories here make me feel somehow my efforts aren't quite enough, and it won't be unless I get family buy-in. We have backyard chickens, and garden, make our own laundry detergent and dry solely by the clothesline 5 months out of the year. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Feb 11, 2014 missy jean rated it it was ok

Shelves: non-fiction

Well, this was a strange experience. I agree with virtually all of the critiques in this book, and with many of the solutions, but was so put off by the strident tone, lack of privilege-checking, poor reporting of qualitative findings, and total dearth of intersectional analysis that I pretty much hated my way through it. The narrative of exclusively personal solutions to structural problems (and "solutions" that can really only be enacted by people with class privilege that they can levy as col ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

May 08, 2011 Aleah rated it it was amazing

Shelves: home-arts, urban-homesteading

Families nationwide are struggling with how to manage a growing sense of powerlessness as our world undergoes climate change, our economy flounders and public health worsens. Shannon Hayes, author of the manifesto “Radical Homemakers,” is not alone in her decision to return to the home – the foundation on which a healthy community is built. But this is not a call to return to well-coiffed housewives who wear heels as they keep house and bake pies. Not at all. Hayes is talking about turning homes ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

May 26, 2011 Aspen Junge rated it really liked it

Shelves: food, feminism

Radical homemaking is what happens when Your Money or Your Life meets Mother Earth News. It's the journey of families who decide that rather than earning lots of money so they can outsource the labor of their lives, want to bring it back inside the family; thus regaining control over their expenses, nutrition, cleaning, child care, community life, etc. The reward is that you spend more time and effort on the things important to you, whatever they may be (as long as they're not too expensive). Ha ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Feb 25, 2012 Teresa rated it it was amazing

Shelves: feminism, non-fiction

Ideas from it that I liked -

- from Old English husband means "house-bonded" - bonded to the home rather than to a lord. The idea of the home as woman's domain did not come about until the industrial revolution.
- the home shifted from a place of production to a place of consumption. This resulted in 1950's discontent at women being expected to shop and cart around kids, rather than being producers.
- we often think of the conflict between self-fulfilment and need to nurture as solely a female is ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 23, 2019 Julia rated it it was amazing

Shelves: nonfiction, parenting, 2019, kindle

High praise for this one just because it has got me thinking about so many things and turned some of my thinking around which I love when a book does that. Many times I was like, 'yes, yes, yes!' and other times I was like 'I don't think I ever want to be THAT radical.' ;) The first half is worth reading again. The second half was interesting but I felt the first half really stuck through on how we got to our consumer culture and the stigmas stay at home moms or dads get. I loved learning about ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 11, 2018 Marilee rated it really liked it

Shelves: nonfiction

I wasn't sure when I picked up this book what I would think of it. I could tell that I was already on board with some of the things that the author talks about, but overall would this seem to radical for me? Shannon Hayes explored a lot of things that I already embrace: self reliance, the importance of family, continuous learning, community support. I can't say that I agree with going without health insurance. I know that is a big issue with this lifestyle, but I have to have health insurance. H ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 21, 2010 Pumpkinbear rated it liked it

Shelves: crafty-books

Radical Homemakers, while readable, isn't really about homemaking, in my opinion. Homemaking as a defiance to consumer culture would absolutely include gardening, home canning, thrifting, etc., as Hayes describes it, but living without a J.O.B, homeschooling the kiddos, forgoing health insurance, raising cows for meat--yeah, that's homesteading, right?

Of course the very fact that the book is "radical" means that it's likely going to be read as judgmental towards the vast swathes of humanity who ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jun 19, 2011 Karen Hipson rated it really liked it

LOVED the first part of the book. She took everything that we (well, some of us) already know about the vital importance of the home and the homemaker, spelled it out, backed it up with facts and figures, and just generally did a great job. It was so loaded with quotables that I didn't even try... just get the book. It's worth it just for the first third, even if you don't read the rest.

Unfortunately the rest of the book got more than a little long-winded, repetitive and lost my interest more th ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 13, 2014 Jenny Loeb rated it really liked it

For the most part I enjoyed reading this book, mostly because I agree with her very strong opinion on lifestyle choice, as I'm currently living a "radical homemaker" like life myself. It validated my choices in a lot of ways, and gave me inspiration to try to do even more myself and to feel okay that I am not pursuing a traditional career path. I love the critique of the modern American lifestyle and think it's valuable for everyone to look at, although I imagine many would be offended or turned ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 31, 2012 Tiffany rated it it was amazing

Shelves: how-to

This is it. This is the book I've been searching for ever since I became a "homemaker" and began wandering the aisles of Target wondering, "Is this it? The best of what I've got?"

Hayes is an impeccable writer, and the first half of the book, especially the chapter on feminism and homemaking, is absolutely fabulous. (I even emailed to tell her how much I enjoyed her book, and how I wrote about it for the Des News. She wrote a gracious reply, so it appears now we're BFFs.)

My only beef about the bo ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

May 28, 2014 Kristina Seleshanko rated it did not like it

I really wanted to like this book. But instead, it just makes me sad. The author's historical research is highly dubious, and the whole thing reads like a screeching feminist repeating herself over and over. And does she ever realize that the feminism she so loves actually caused society to look upon creating a home as unworthy? Nope. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jun 06, 2019 T. added it

Shelves: homemaking, 2018-reading-list, book-club-ideas

"If you ever considered quitting a job to plant tomatoes, read to a child, pursue creative work, can green beans[,] and heal the planet, this is your book." –Shannon Hayes

In brief: A feminist defends a robust vision of homemaking, of choosing the life-giving economy over the extractive economy. As someone who was raised on a farm, took the PhD route, and returned to the farm, Hayes lives what she writes. Her prehistory is wonky, but her historical overview of the industrial revolution(s) and of "If you ever considered quitting a job to plant tomatoes, read to a child, pursue creative work, can green beans[,] and heal the planet, this is your book." –Shannon Hayes

In brief: A feminist defends a robust vision of homemaking, of choosing the life-giving economy over the extractive economy. As someone who was raised on a farm, took the PhD route, and returned to the farm, Hayes lives what she writes. Her prehistory is wonky, but her historical overview of the industrial revolution(s) and of society's ironic, in some ways tragic, response to Betty Friedan's articulation of the "problem that has no name" is fairly solid and helpful.

But the best part of the book comprises the stories of twenty inspiring "radical homemakers" and how they go against the individualist/consumerist grain in their multifarious ways.

Shannon Hayes is a refreshing, sane voice, someone who argues from a desire to love our neighbors, human and nonhuman alike, rather than from a desire for power and control under the guise of "freedom" and "equality." She's unapologetic about rooting herself in things that matter—home, family, community, land.

Recommended follow-up reading: Patrick Deneen, Wendell Berry, and Dorothy Day.

Appendix:

Patrick Deneen mentions Radical Homemakers in the bibliography of Why Liberalism Failed. Here is an excerpt from near the end of Deneen's book:

Liberal anticulture rests on three pillars: first, the wholesale conquest of nature, which consequently makes nature into an independent object requiring salvation by the notional elimination of humanity, second, a new experience of time as a pastless present in which the future is a foreign land; and third, an order that renders place fungible and bereft of definitional meaning. These three cornerstones of human experience–nature, time and place–form the basis of culture, and liberalism’s success is premised upon their uprooting and replacement with facsimiles that bear the same names. ...

The building up of practices of care, patience, humility, reverence, respect, and modesty is also evident among people of no particular religious belief, homesteaders and “radical homemakers” who–like their religious counterparts–are seeking within households and local communities and marketplaces to rediscover old practices, and create new ones, that foster new forms of culture that liberalism otherwise seeks to eviscerate.

Often called a counterculture, such efforts should better understand themselves as a counter-anticulture . . . A counter-anticulture also requires developing economic practices centered on “household economics,” namely, economic habits that are developed to support the flourishing of households but which in turn seek to transform the household into a small economy. Utility and ease must be rejected in preference to practices of local knowledge and virtuosity. The ability to do and make things for oneself–to provision one’s own household through the work of one’s own and one’s children’s hands–should be prized above consumption and waste. The skills of building, fixing, cooking, planting, preserving, and composting not only undergird the independence and integrity of the home but develop practices and skills that are the basic sources of culture and a shared civic life. They teach each generation the demands, gifts and limits of nature; human participation in and celebration of natural rhythms and patterns; and independence from the culture-destroying ignorance and laziness induced by the ersatz freedom of the modern market.

...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 29, 2017 Sarah D'Amato rated it liked it

Started off good but the second half seemed primarily preachy and pretentious. Read the first half to inspire you towards homesteading and homemaking as a lifestyle, but find other sources to help you do it.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 29, 2010 sleeps9hours rated it it was ok

Borrowed a lot from previous writers I’ve liked. Repeats the simple living message under a new label. Still a good message to get out there. Some fuzzy thinking in the theory section was annoying, and as a nonfiction book it didn't show the quality of research that I expect, but provides good fodder for discussion.

Drew from many popular previous books and then supplemented with info gained from interviewing 20 people or couples the author identified as Radical Homemakers. If you've read these, y ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 09, 2013 Ed rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2013

By page 13 I was sure that I was going to love this book because of the following quotes, "...Radical Homemakers are men and women who have chosen to make family, community, social justice, and the health of the planet the governing principles of their lives. They reject any form of labor or the expenditure of any resource that does not honor these tenets." Further down the page, discussing the hold that money and those who control money, Hayes writes, "By contrast, Radical Homemakers use life s By page 13 I was sure that I was going to love this book because of the following quotes, "...Radical Homemakers are men and women who have chosen to make family, community, social justice, and the health of the planet the governing principles of their lives. They reject any form of labor or the expenditure of any resource that does not honor these tenets." Further down the page, discussing the hold that money and those who control money, Hayes writes, "By contrast, Radical Homemakers use life skills and relationships as a replacement for gold, on the premise that he or she who doesn't need the gold can change the rules. The greater our domestic skills, be they to plant a garden, grow tomatoes on an apartment balcony, mend a shirt, repair an appliance, provide for our own entertainment, cook and preserve a local harvest or care for our children and loved ones, the less dependent we are on the gold."

There are some fabulous thoughts within this inspiring book. It does a great job of pointing out the emptiness of consumerist culture, of pointing out the myriad of benefits in increasing self reliance, and the richness of developing authentic community, and describing many of the problems found within the health care system and also corporate culture. However, I felt that the book suffered from some dubious scholarship, a bit of dragging, repetition of ideas that lead to feelings of deja vu, and a lack of advice on how to approach a style of radical homemaking. I feel like the book also suffers from the implication that the reader needs to jump into the deep end of Radical Homemaking: quitting your job, neglecting to have health care insurance, buying a farm and becoming nearly completely self sufficient, and homeschooling your children. That's obviously not feasible for most people, or at least requires a level of commitment to the idea that many would lack. It would have been nice to have seen a description of gradual steps that can been taken towards such a lifestyle, such as starting with a small balcony garden and canning local produce.

The book rambled a bit in parts too. I was wondering whether to give it three or four stars and decided on four, feeling that the notable strengths of the book outweighed the weaknesses. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 28, 2010 Betsy rated it it was amazing

Shelves: simplicity, sustainability, environmental, environmental-ed, self-sufficiency, society, agriculture-food, non-fiction

Hayes Quotes: "If you ever considered quitting a job to plant tomatoes, read to a child, pursue creative work, can green beans, and heal the planet, this is your book." "While most count wealth as the presence of surplus money, [others] count their wealth as the ability to live well without it."

This was an inspiring book looking at families who live home-based lives, relying on themselves, their skills, their families, their neighborhoods, and their communities, and relying less on money. Hayes Hayes Quotes: "If you ever considered quitting a job to plant tomatoes, read to a child, pursue creative work, can green beans, and heal the planet, this is your book." "While most count wealth as the presence of surplus money, [others] count their wealth as the ability to live well without it."

This was an inspiring book looking at families who live home-based lives, relying on themselves, their skills, their families, their neighborhoods, and their communities, and relying less on money. Hayes covers a lot of ideas in 255 pages. This books sparks a lot of intellectual directions you might pursue after. Fairly well-referenced, but at times I wish some facts had had references when none were listed. But really, what I liked about this book is that it makes you feel that you can be a homemaker anywhere, no matter where you lived or what you are doing (even grad school). Sure some people she interviewed live on organic farms in Vermont and upstate NY, but other people live in downtown NYC, Chicago, or Los Angeles and are still gardening and composting and advocating for the right to have chickens and building community connections. Hayes talks about 3 steps in the process. 1. Renouncing the concept of depending on money to supply all of your needs, 2. Reclaiming, learning and developing the skills that will help you to supply for yourself (whether gardening, canning, knitting, art, furniture-making, self-education, etc.), and 3. Rebuilding, reaching out to help make the world more relationship-based instead of money-based. Unfortunately I need to return this book to the library now, and unfortunately the intense time I've spent with it shows wear on an almost-new book, but it's one of those books that seems like a good one to return to on occasion to remember the things that are so easy to forget. That life is community, not having a career. That money doesn't have to be the middle man - we can supply for ourselves and barter for many things we can't. That it is ridiculous how many Americans (including me) don't know our neighbors. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 05, 2010 Courtney rated it really liked it

Shelves: the-latest

This book seemed like an interesting outgrowth of the voluntary simplicity movement. I liked her writing style and the first two thirds of the book was devoted to a history portion of the overall loss of the view of homemaking that involved both genders prior to the industrial revolution. The final third focused on themes emergent from the 20 plus interviews she conducted with the individuals and couples who left the traditional corporate America or academic tracks to live lifestyles centered on ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 18, 2011 Elizabeth R rated it it was amazing

Absolutely LOVED this book!!!! Almost from the first word, I was nodding to myself and bouncing excitedly as I read, so strong was my reaction to what I see as a fascinating, necessary, and approachable take on a topic that bears much scrutiny: our current culture of consumption and how it is affecting our quality of life. I have been recommending this book to anyone who will stand still long enough to hear me gush. Ms. Hayes did a good job, in my opinion, of drawing on a diverse group of subjec ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review