The other day, I briefly responded to Erica Jong's Wall Street Journal article Mother Madness, in which she equates modern motherhood (and attachment parenting in particular) with prison. The piece has caused quite the stir in the world of social media, and in case you couldn't tell from my previous post, I didn't like it.
In her article, Jong reiterates the same basic controversial premise that has brought notoriety to writers like Hannah Rosin and Elisabeth Badinter: that nurturing our babies and children by responding to their needs is the wrong way to mother because it's making us miserable.
That motherhood itself, or more specifically a particular kind of motherhood -- the kind where we are willing to devote much of our time and energy to our children -- is what is holding women back.
Jong goes on the attack against attachment parenting from the beginning, calling out Bill and Martha Sears and their popular Baby Book as one of the primary reasons women become sacrificial lambs on the altar of motherhood (as I imagine she might put it).
What is so frustrating about her article, though, is that she clearly doesn't understand attachment parenting, and confuses a responsive style of mothering with an obsessive desire to raise the "perfect" child.
She clearly doesn't realize that you can parent by attachment while working outside the home, or that attachment parenting does leave room for caregivers other than mom or dad in a child's life. She also seems to think that attachment parenting means making your own baby food and using cloth diapers, and while many attachment parents may do these things, one has nothing to do with the other.
I for one did neither, and my style of parenting is fairly attachment-oriented.
Erica Jong's Mother Madness is perfectly defined by writer and attachment parenting guru Katie Allison Granju in her response on The New York Times Motherlode blog as a "messy amalgam of multiple parenting cliches." Granju debunks many of the attachment parenting myths promoted in Jong's article, and articulates the flaws in Jong's irrational assertions far better than I can.
Granju's is an article worth reading.
Erica Jong is apparently a long-time feminist activist, but she is clearly out of her element when it comes to writing about a style of motherhood that she never embraced. Her own daughter, Molly Jong-Fast wrote a response piece, in which she describes her childhood and her relationship with her mother, and very astutely concludes that her mother worked hard so that she as the daughter could have choices.
Her defense of her mother is touching, and I wholeheartedly agree that there are a million different ways to be a good mother to your child. I may not agree with Jong's choices, and they clearly wouldn't work for me, but I'm not going to deride it and publish an essay in a national publication telling her how she's done everything wrong.
That's Erica Jong's style. Not mine.
Lost in the mish-mosh of Mother Madness are some valid points. Jong is correct that the media focuses on images of smiling celebrities with their children, but never shows the nannies. She is correct that there are parents who get so caught up in the desire to do everything "right" who are overly susceptible to ideas and theories of what constitutes "good" parenting.
While I practice many of the principles of attachment parenting, I have long been frustrated by the label, because I don't believe that parents or parenting styles need to be categorized. I agree that it's dangerous to give new mothers the idea that "this is what you should be doing."
In fact, I also agree with Ms. Jong on one other very important point: that modern motherhood desperately needs to be redefined.
Modern mothers are struggling under the weight of tremendous pressure, but the pressure to be an excellent mother is no greater than the pressure to function in society (and more importantly in the work place) as if you weren't a mother. Yes, there are women who stay home to raise children for the wrong reasons and probably feel imprisoned. But there are also women who leave their children and go to work because it is what is expected of them or because they must to provide for their family, and feel just as imprisoned there.
Attachment parenting may be a convenient scapegoat, but we have far greater cultural problems than arguing about whether moms should make their own baby food. We need longer maternity leaves and an increased acceptance of leave for fathers as well. We need laws protecting women's rights to pump at work and breastfeed in public. We need fellow mothers who are willing to accept that there are ways of raising children that are different from their own. We need far more support, and far fewer critics.
Motherhood isn't holding us back.
But so-called feminists who insist on blaming motherhood for the undone work of the women's movement instead of fighting for the social change that mothers deserve just might be.
Showing posts with label mommy wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mommy wars. Show all posts
Friday, November 12, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Mary Fallin and More Mommy Wars: Does Motherhood Make You A Better Political Candidate?
I'm watching The View right now. Yes, that's pretty much how I keep up with current events these days . . .
And a discussion of how sad it is that these contentious ladies are considered a credible news source by so many aside, they do have a habit of talking about topics that interest me.
Today, the topic up for discussion is Mary Fallin, the Republican candidate for governor of Oklahoma. Fallin's Democratic opponent, Jari Askins, is also a woman, so the state of Oklahoma is poised to elect the first female governor in it's history in next Tuesday's election.
Usually, voters would be casting their votes based on their preferred political party, their conservative or liberal leanings, their understanding and assessment of the candidates' qualifications and experience.
Unfortunately, this race seems to have been reduced to yet another battle in the mommy wars.
In a debate last Tuesday, Mary Fallin stated that her experience as a mother of six (four of whom are stepchildren) makes her more qualified to lead the state of Oklahoma than her unmarried, childless opponent.
It's a pretty simple statement. I think that many women who have raised families or who are in the midst of caring for young children would agree that it is an exercise in patience, leadership, and compassion, and that you learn all sorts of things about time management, how to motivate people, how to handle delicate situations, how to broker peace agreements. etc.
I could go on and on about the skills acquired in motherhood, and yes, I do personally believe that experience as a mother can be a valuable asset for a woman in other aspects of her life.
But . . .
The fact that you learn a lot as a mother isn't really the issue here, nor is it the reason why Ms. Fallin's statement has received so much publicity. By playing the "mom" card, and more specifically by saying that a woman who hasn't had children is less qualified, the Republican candidate has really put her foot in her mouth.
Feminists are up in arms over the notion that in the year 2010 a woman's worth can still be defined in terms of her marital and reproductive status. And even people who agree that motherhood provides her with valuable experience have trouble with her assertion that this experience is more valid than the outstanding (albeit childless) resume of her opponent Ms. Askins.
For me, I believe that bearing and raising children is an integral part of many women's identities. Motherhood alters your life and changes your perspective. It grounds you and knocks you on your ass simultaneously. And unfortunately, it is often dismissed in our culture as less important and less valuable than so many of the other (most often paid) endeavors that women pursue.
Motherhood should be a valid point on a resume. Raising and caring for our next generation is important work with the potential for huge long-term impact. But just as women shouldn't be penalized for being mothers, we also shouldn't be penalized for not being a mother. One isn't better than the other.
Women are a diverse group, with different strengths, passions, and interests. We are united by our ability to have children, but we don't need to be defined by it.
Ms. Fallin should be welcome to cite her experience raising her family as one small part of who she is and why she is a better candidate. I disagree with feminists who claim that motherhood doesn't or shouldn't impact your professional identity at all.
But suggesting that Ms. Askins is lacking simply because she has never had children is taking it too far. Life is full of choices and trade-offs, and women have come a long way in the past few decades in ensuring that we have the right to make our own choices and choose our own trade-offs.
Fighting amongst ourselves over who has made the right or the best ones isn't going to help women anywhere.
Fortunately, getting elected as Governor just might. My best wishes for each of the two women, mother or not, as she heads into election night.
And a discussion of how sad it is that these contentious ladies are considered a credible news source by so many aside, they do have a habit of talking about topics that interest me.
Today, the topic up for discussion is Mary Fallin, the Republican candidate for governor of Oklahoma. Fallin's Democratic opponent, Jari Askins, is also a woman, so the state of Oklahoma is poised to elect the first female governor in it's history in next Tuesday's election.
Usually, voters would be casting their votes based on their preferred political party, their conservative or liberal leanings, their understanding and assessment of the candidates' qualifications and experience.
Unfortunately, this race seems to have been reduced to yet another battle in the mommy wars.
In a debate last Tuesday, Mary Fallin stated that her experience as a mother of six (four of whom are stepchildren) makes her more qualified to lead the state of Oklahoma than her unmarried, childless opponent.
It's a pretty simple statement. I think that many women who have raised families or who are in the midst of caring for young children would agree that it is an exercise in patience, leadership, and compassion, and that you learn all sorts of things about time management, how to motivate people, how to handle delicate situations, how to broker peace agreements. etc.
I could go on and on about the skills acquired in motherhood, and yes, I do personally believe that experience as a mother can be a valuable asset for a woman in other aspects of her life.
But . . .
The fact that you learn a lot as a mother isn't really the issue here, nor is it the reason why Ms. Fallin's statement has received so much publicity. By playing the "mom" card, and more specifically by saying that a woman who hasn't had children is less qualified, the Republican candidate has really put her foot in her mouth.
Feminists are up in arms over the notion that in the year 2010 a woman's worth can still be defined in terms of her marital and reproductive status. And even people who agree that motherhood provides her with valuable experience have trouble with her assertion that this experience is more valid than the outstanding (albeit childless) resume of her opponent Ms. Askins.
For me, I believe that bearing and raising children is an integral part of many women's identities. Motherhood alters your life and changes your perspective. It grounds you and knocks you on your ass simultaneously. And unfortunately, it is often dismissed in our culture as less important and less valuable than so many of the other (most often paid) endeavors that women pursue.
Motherhood should be a valid point on a resume. Raising and caring for our next generation is important work with the potential for huge long-term impact. But just as women shouldn't be penalized for being mothers, we also shouldn't be penalized for not being a mother. One isn't better than the other.
Women are a diverse group, with different strengths, passions, and interests. We are united by our ability to have children, but we don't need to be defined by it.
Ms. Fallin should be welcome to cite her experience raising her family as one small part of who she is and why she is a better candidate. I disagree with feminists who claim that motherhood doesn't or shouldn't impact your professional identity at all.
But suggesting that Ms. Askins is lacking simply because she has never had children is taking it too far. Life is full of choices and trade-offs, and women have come a long way in the past few decades in ensuring that we have the right to make our own choices and choose our own trade-offs.
Fighting amongst ourselves over who has made the right or the best ones isn't going to help women anywhere.
Fortunately, getting elected as Governor just might. My best wishes for each of the two women, mother or not, as she heads into election night.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Return to the Sunday Surf: 9/12-9/25
I was hesitant to start doing a Sunday Surf in the first place because I just kept thinking about how then you have to, like, actually commit to having a post for every Sunday. But then I remembered that:
a) it's my blog and I can do what I want and
b) very few people are reading anyway.
So chances are pretty good that, most Sundays, you'll find a Sunday Surf here. And if I have a week like last week, you won't. I'm pretty sure that, in those instances where I don't manage one, nobody is really going to care anyway . . .
This week, however, I have somehow managed to pull a few things together from the past few weeks on the web.
a) it's my blog and I can do what I want and
b) very few people are reading anyway.
So chances are pretty good that, most Sundays, you'll find a Sunday Surf here. And if I have a week like last week, you won't. I'm pretty sure that, in those instances where I don't manage one, nobody is really going to care anyway . . .
This week, however, I have somehow managed to pull a few things together from the past few weeks on the web.
- A recall of many types of Similac infant fomula due to the possible presence of beetles and larvae has made big news in the parenting world. In an article at The Stir, Formula Recall Brings Out the Mean in Breastfeeders, Julie Ryan Evans poses an interesting question about whether it's ever okay to use a moment like this to tell mothers that this is why they "should" have breastfed. There are a lot of statements in the article that I don't care for -- because it's pretty obvious that all they're trying to "stir" up over there is controversy and web traffic -- but Evans' makes a valid point that catty and unproductive comments are "not really necessary when women are terrified about a product they may have given their baby that's making them sick." This unfortunate incident does highlight the risks of formua feeding, but it also highlights the need for compassion for parents who have made choices different from our own.
- Apparently, Katy Perry is too hot for Sesame Street. A segment that the popular singer taped for the show will not be broadcast on television due to complaints over her "skimpy" costume. The outfit doesn't bother me at all, but I can see why some parents complained. It's a cute clip and a catchy song if you want to check it out. Though you may be a bad parent if you let your kids watch it . . .
- A two-part discussion of separation anxiety at Secrets of Baby Behavior struck me as something a lot of new parents might be interested in. (And if you're looking for some blog controversy on the issue of toddlers and separation, go back a few months and check out this post at the already controversial Peaceful Parenting blog, and then read this post post at Raising My Boychick). The last two aren't new but they definitely provide food for thought, particularly if you're interested in attachment-style parenting.
- A recipe for Banana-Oatmeal-Chocolate Chip Cookies that contain no sugar or butter at Weelicious. I know the no-butter-or-sugar thing doesn't sound promising, but click on over and go look at the picture. They look soooo good! And the blog/website has a ton of great recipes for babies, toddlers, and older kids, plus daily lunch box pictures for those of us who struggle to know what to pack that's both healthy and fun day after day after day.
- If you live in St. Louis, you don't want to miss Come Play! at COCA on Saturday, October 2 from 9-3. Find out all about the free event from St. Louis Kids Magazine.
- Mom-101 always makes me smile, but I particularly enjoyed her post this week about the use of stars as a behavior/reward system in kindergarten. Are you a star-parent or a no-star parent? Clearly, lines have been drawn in the sand . . .
- Elita at Blacktating shared a link to an article called Why African Babies Don't Cry. I always find it fascinating to see how our assumptions about what to expect when raising children are so heavily influenced by cultural norms.
A study of 253 California hospitals was released this month, showing that c-section rates are significantly higher at for-profit hospitals than they are at not-for-profit hospitals. Um, duh. Hospitals make a lot of money off of birth in general, and c-sections in particular. That's why Ricki Lake's movie was called The Business of Being Born . . .
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Is the Stay-at-Home Mom the Ultimate Feminine Mistake?
The Feminine Mistake.
Yes, it's a catchy title and a clever play on Betty Friedan's iconic classic, The Feminine Mystique.
But this book pissed me off. Royally.
Author Leslie Bennetts claims that The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much was inspired by her "exasperation at the glorification of stay-at-home motherhood." Clearly, because in every chapter of the book she seems to be on a personal quest to deglorify it in painstaking detail.
I, and all you other women out there who have been as foolish as I have been and have chosen to quit working and to stay home with children, will eventually rue the day that that decision was made. We will be blindsided when our husbands die, or more likely divorce us for younger women, and we will be left broke and alone, with no career and no means of supporting ourselves or our children financially.
Okay, Leslie, point taken. Men sometimes leave. Sometimes, they lose their jobs. Sometimes, life doesn't turn out as we plan.
But the point might have been more convincing if you hadn't used the same example over and over and over and over. I lost track of just how many real-life women whose husbands had left were featured in the book. And I kept waiting for a husband who had stayed.
He never appeared.
I'm loathe to admit this, but, in the midst of all the insanity and misguided conclusions, Bennett raises some valid points. Women who choose to stop working and stay home to raise children do lose more than just a paycheck. We lose valuable work experience which impacts our long-term earning potential. We lose the validation that often comes with paid employment. We do lose financial security.
And, unless we're independently wealthy -- show of hands, anybody?? no?? -- we do become financially dependent on our husband or partner.
Don't even bother protesting that you're planning to re-enter the work force once your kids are older. Bennetts covers that too -- it's next to impossible, in case you were wondering.
Choosing to be a stay-at-home mom is a complicated web of risk and trust, self-esteem and vulnerability. It is a calculated risk to assume that your husband will continue to provide for you and your children. It takes a tremendous amount of trust and love to believe and truly know that you're with somebody who isn't going anywhere.
It isn't every woman who can open herself up to that level of vulnerability, or who has high enough self-esteem to recognize her own non-monetary contributions to her children and her husband as worthwhile.
I'm not arguing that women should be stay-at-home moms, but I am arguing that it is a valid choice.
Bennetts doesn't seem to think so.
"If you just walk away from paid employment, you will not only have cheated yourself of the opportunities that might have come your way but you will also have forfeited your chance to have an impact for the better," she writes. Because apparently working moms forfeit nothing and paid employment is the only way to impact the world.
"Women must (emphasis mine) reevaluate their assumptions and consider their long-term interests as well as their families short-term needs before making major life choices."
You know, because she said so, and because if we've chosen to stay at home because we're obviously too stupid to have considered the long-term repercussions.
Ultimately, my main frustration with The Feminine Mistake is not in it's message but in its tone. Bennetts has a major superiority complex, and instead of just sharing what worked for her and talking about how combining motherhood with a career can be a great choice with a lot of financial and emotional benefits, she goes on a rampage against any woman who has chosen a different path.
It's as if she's on a mission to show stay-at-home moms everywhere the error of their ways. And I find it hard to stomach that kind of smug superior attitude, especially when she states that "this book is not intended as a contribution to the Mommy Wars."
Really? Because I swear there was a lot of mud-slinging going on in those pages. Sure it was subtle and cleverly masked under the cloak of intellectualism, but it was there. And how does that help anybody?
We're all just feeling our way through this thing called motherhood. NOBODY has the right answer, particularly since it's different for every woman.
And while I've always thought of myself as a feminist, this book really makes me question that label.
If feminism is about women having the power to make our own choices, is it also about other women having the power to reprimand us when we've made the wrong ones?
Seriously, folks, I'm asking. Anybody have an answer?
Yes, it's a catchy title and a clever play on Betty Friedan's iconic classic, The Feminine Mystique.
But this book pissed me off. Royally.
Author Leslie Bennetts claims that The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much was inspired by her "exasperation at the glorification of stay-at-home motherhood." Clearly, because in every chapter of the book she seems to be on a personal quest to deglorify it in painstaking detail.
I, and all you other women out there who have been as foolish as I have been and have chosen to quit working and to stay home with children, will eventually rue the day that that decision was made. We will be blindsided when our husbands die, or more likely divorce us for younger women, and we will be left broke and alone, with no career and no means of supporting ourselves or our children financially.
Okay, Leslie, point taken. Men sometimes leave. Sometimes, they lose their jobs. Sometimes, life doesn't turn out as we plan.
But the point might have been more convincing if you hadn't used the same example over and over and over and over. I lost track of just how many real-life women whose husbands had left were featured in the book. And I kept waiting for a husband who had stayed.
He never appeared.
I'm loathe to admit this, but, in the midst of all the insanity and misguided conclusions, Bennett raises some valid points. Women who choose to stop working and stay home to raise children do lose more than just a paycheck. We lose valuable work experience which impacts our long-term earning potential. We lose the validation that often comes with paid employment. We do lose financial security.
And, unless we're independently wealthy -- show of hands, anybody?? no?? -- we do become financially dependent on our husband or partner.
Don't even bother protesting that you're planning to re-enter the work force once your kids are older. Bennetts covers that too -- it's next to impossible, in case you were wondering.
Choosing to be a stay-at-home mom is a complicated web of risk and trust, self-esteem and vulnerability. It is a calculated risk to assume that your husband will continue to provide for you and your children. It takes a tremendous amount of trust and love to believe and truly know that you're with somebody who isn't going anywhere.
It isn't every woman who can open herself up to that level of vulnerability, or who has high enough self-esteem to recognize her own non-monetary contributions to her children and her husband as worthwhile.
I'm not arguing that women should be stay-at-home moms, but I am arguing that it is a valid choice.
Bennetts doesn't seem to think so.
"If you just walk away from paid employment, you will not only have cheated yourself of the opportunities that might have come your way but you will also have forfeited your chance to have an impact for the better," she writes. Because apparently working moms forfeit nothing and paid employment is the only way to impact the world.
"Women must (emphasis mine) reevaluate their assumptions and consider their long-term interests as well as their families short-term needs before making major life choices."
You know, because she said so, and because if we've chosen to stay at home because we're obviously too stupid to have considered the long-term repercussions.
Ultimately, my main frustration with The Feminine Mistake is not in it's message but in its tone. Bennetts has a major superiority complex, and instead of just sharing what worked for her and talking about how combining motherhood with a career can be a great choice with a lot of financial and emotional benefits, she goes on a rampage against any woman who has chosen a different path.
It's as if she's on a mission to show stay-at-home moms everywhere the error of their ways. And I find it hard to stomach that kind of smug superior attitude, especially when she states that "this book is not intended as a contribution to the Mommy Wars."
Really? Because I swear there was a lot of mud-slinging going on in those pages. Sure it was subtle and cleverly masked under the cloak of intellectualism, but it was there. And how does that help anybody?
We're all just feeling our way through this thing called motherhood. NOBODY has the right answer, particularly since it's different for every woman.
And while I've always thought of myself as a feminist, this book really makes me question that label.
If feminism is about women having the power to make our own choices, is it also about other women having the power to reprimand us when we've made the wrong ones?
Seriously, folks, I'm asking. Anybody have an answer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)