Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Ask Team Ambiguity: Are Women Enslaved by Modern Motherhood?

Mikalh, moments after his birth, already getting ready to marginalize me.

I was looking for fodder for Team Ambiguity. What would be worth bringing to color, that is currently black and white? What do we have a lot to say about–with our different opinions and different experiences–more to say than the "experts," than the "thinkers?" There I was, thumbing through pages on the internet. Two clicks and there it was. An interview with Elizabeth Badinter, the author of "The Conflict : How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women."  Badinter is described in the article as "[arguing] that motherhood–or, at least, certain approaches to motherhood–come at a huge, and unacceptable, cost [to women]." Badinter is especially concerned with the promotion of exclusive breastfeeding, mothers staying home with kids and what is termed "intensive" parenting.

This article, by Lisa Belkin, in the Huffington Post, is the kind of thing that frustrates me. No disrespect to the journalist. It's the topic that makes me batty. I could give you lots of really well-reasoned, intellectual arguments why, but the experience I have is this: When I was a little girl, other little girls were mean to me. This is part of the known topography of elementary school. Little girls can be wickedly mean, and, especially to strange girls who speak like the characters from Victorian children's novels. In high school, girls–now larger, with glossy hair and breasts, continued to be mean. It was girls who assassinated my character, girls who knew where to plunge a dagger of words, so it would send you in a lifeless heap to the ground, reeling from shock and heartbreak.  Girls made the rules and then shut you out. Most of these girls grew into women who are not mean anymore, because they are no longer so afraid. But the sensation seems oddly familiar.

Forgive me for saying so, but the self-styled feminists who write these books about what women should not do–what is wrong with women–seem very much like grown-up mean girls to me. I reject a claim to feminism on behalf of any woman whose argument is about devaluing what is held dear by women, insulting the choices they make, and suggesting that they, instead, behave more like men. And just like in school, my reaction is one, first of hurt, and then of anger.

Acid, burning, biting anger because they assume so much that would make me small, and then, they claim that I have made myself small. If what they are saying is pro-women, why does it leave the perspective of most women out? I think a truly feminist message empowers women, not insults them.

When I posted yesterday, I asked, "What's the body in this living room?" I want to know what you think, even if–especially if–you and I disagree. (Please make me smarter!) Here is what I see from my end:

The Left Leg: Financial independence does not equal fulfillment.
Badinter is very concerned with the preservation of the status and financial independence of women. How, though, are we going to assign status? I have lots of thoughts on this, but I am going to quote Tangled Lou, who said it much better than I could:

"The notion that a woman's (or anyone's for that matter) worth is determined solely by her earning power is ridiculous. It is the mess that our country is currently in with the whole 99% vs. 1%. We have collectively focused on financial gain with no thought of consequence for the last several decades and now it's all falling apart. A large part of the reason it's falling apart, I believe, is because very little attention has been paid to the finer aspects of being human: critical thought, creativity, personal sacrifice, meaningful relationships, etc. If we are valuing people not by what they contribute to society, but by what they are able to consume, we will only consume each other and ourselves. At its heart, the focus on financial viability is ultimately a focus on consumption, which will always be dissatisfying and incomplete. So, the argument that women are giving up 'status' to raise families is fallacious in that it is argued from a faulty notion of 'status.'
The Right Leg: Classism
Motherhood, it is being argued, is at odds with a fulfilling career. Set aside any argument, from our other leg, about what constitutes a fulfilling career. I am assuming that Badinter is not talking about a job at Starbucks or a meat packing plant or a widget factory. She is talking to educated women, women with the luxury of a "fulfilling career." That is not, as it happens, most women, or even, necessarily, every women with a degree, the job market being what it is. Our choices are not "Follow a ribbon of stars to the top of the sky." vs. "Change diapers and watch Days of Our Lives." Both of those options are ridiculously oversimplified. Given the actual menu of choices, women do what makes sense to them. And they do it, thanks to the feminists of yore, generally, with some sense of choice.

The Left Arm: Valid and best are not the same. 
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I know that it is best to exercise 30-45 minutes at least four days a week. I know that it is best not to bite my cuticles. I know that it is best to drink eight glasses of water or more a day. And I still don't do those things. My choice–or knee-jerk reaction–with regard to any of these is valid. I compromise because no one is going to be perfect, because doing what is best is not always best for me, if it will drive me crazy.

For those same kinds of reasons, lots of moms don't breastfeed or stop sooner than is recommended. (I am not talking about moms who adopt or who have a physical issue preventing them from nursing.) It is no good doing the perfect thing if you are going to go nuts doing it. But that doesn't mean that bottle feeding is as healthy as breastfeeding. I know this is going to drive a lot of people crazy because we think we have to do the perfect thing for our kids, but we don't. And none of us does, to be perfectly honest. So, some of us breastfeed and some of us don't. Some breastfeed for two years, four years. Some manage it for two weeks. From a medical perspective, longer is probably better, at least up to a point. From a medical perspective, I should drink at least sixteen ounces less of coffee every day. I don't need to pretend, though, that, actually, drinking too much coffee is better or equally healthy.

The Right Arm: Fear of experts. 
My children see, collectively, a psychiatrist, two counselors, a speech-language pathologist, a special ed. teacher, an occupational therapist and two physical therapists. If I could not use these people, I would find it very hard to do the right thing as a mother, on my own. So I think Badinter's advice regarding experts is bad advice, even though she had parenting book experts in mind, I presume. But I think she is pointing at something very true. We are way too worried about experts. Because we act like we aren't competent, intelligent people.

If you are a seasoned professional in your field–or even, let's say, a bright and promising novice–your attitude about new information regarding that field is not going to be one of, "Shut the blinds! Batten down the door! Don't let any light in here!" That is the strategy of someone who is afraid. You–the professional–you're going to be interested in this information, but then you are going to filter it through what you know and have experienced, what you value and what your intuition is telling you, before you decide a thing. Right? Experts are consultants. If you need some input, use them. But you are the one who makes the choice.

The Rest of the Body: Stories, not advice. 
The discussion in comments, when I looked, was not much better than the article itself. They ran the gamut from bland defenses of the joys of traditional motherhood to the oft-repeated statement "To each her own.," along with the occasional odd interjection of a man telling women to get off the pity pot. It all made me tired and sad.

I had three children by natural childbirth and breastfed them each two years. Then I stayed home with them while they were little. So, that's my deal. What I find sad is that when, for some reason, this comes up in conversation with a mom who's mothering journey took a different turn, there is almost always tension. But that same tension is not there if I say I didn't finish college and they did. It's not there if I say I have pets and they don't. Why should this be any different?

How often is any woman actually asking you for your advice on whether or not she should get an epidural, breastfeed exclusively or co-sleep with her child? How often is she asking if she should stay home with them? Not a lot. Women don't often come to us with requests for advice. They come with stories. If you want people to nurse, or to forgo vaccines, or to carry their infants around in slings, work with women who are pregnant, not women who have already made these choices. Once the choices are made, the woman who is talking is just telling her story. It's a memoir of her time with her babies, or the time she bore her babies. You don't have to agree or disagree.

All you have to do is listen.

But, forget all this. What do you think? If you and I stand on opposite ends of the world, in our impressions of this article, I still want to be your friend. What is missing in this conversation? Please, don't forget to follow the rules. I can't wait to hear what you all have to say.

71 comments:

  1. Hi there - I followed you here from Sybermoms and I can't tell you (er, well I am, I guess) how much I enjoyed this post. I used to blog a bit about Linda Hirshman and her "feminist" attacks ( http://imponderabilia.blogspot.com/2006/09/get-to-work-book-review.html ) but haven't had time to keep up with it lately, and it's heartening to see your work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! What an excellent article! I just tweeted it. If you ever start putting content on that blog again, it goes immediately onto my blogroll. Your background is far superior to mine on this subject, so it means a great deal that you liked what I had to say. Thanks!

      Delete
  2. Well said Tara!! I was a stay at home for about 10 years and had the support of an engaging, intellectual, caring, and what i would term feminist group of other stay at home moms. I breastfed both boys until they weaned themselves--one for two years and one for about 9 months. I did depend on my husband's salary but that did not mean I wasn't independent in other ways---my work consisted of caring for these boys and caring for the home---which as Ann Romney says is valuable and valued (and I would say necessary) work.
    I agree with Tara that tearing into stay at home moms can be judgmental, disrespectful, narrow minded, and unhelpful for the general strengthening of a woman's potential in life. I have been working full time for almost 20 years in a fulfilling career and by no means think my time with the boys hindered my job search.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I think you pointed to something else that I find missing from what these positional women talk about: the engagement available outside of paying work. You found it in a group of moms, as so many of us do. I got to lead a citizen's advisory committee for a government body while home with my babes, something I would never have been "qualified" to do in the workforce. (Now I work and love that, too.)

      Volunteer work is necessary in our society and it presents certain growth opportunities and a lot of opportunity for fulfillment. Even moms who are active PTA members are not just doing that to benefit their own individual child. They are doing it because there is something about it they find engaging–some way to use their talent, be in community, to contribute. There are so many ways to be fulfilled that can't be addressed inside a 40 hour (or more) a week job. My husband very much wishes he had the luxury of choosing to work less and spend more time with family. It is a choice many would make if they could.

      Delete
  3. Ha! I'm back, having read the Belkin article on Badinter, Melissa Faye Greene's lovely response, and a few comments. I'm generally not impressed with comments on big stories (unlike smaller blogs, which often have more thoughtful responses than HuffPo or bigger media pieces). I also read Pamela Druckerman's "Bringing Up Bebe" last week, so I'm an expert on French vs. American parenting right now. ;-)

    The first thing that struck me was that (like Linda Hirshman!), Badinter has a PhD in philosophy. And apparently, she also plenty of disposable wealth (Hirshman seems 'comfortable' in this respect). She is also the same age as Linda Hirshman (both b. 1944) - wow. Lots of similarities there.

    I wonder if there is something about philosophy that produces an aversion to caregiving (whether paid or unpaid), along with an affinity for economic explanations and paradigms at the expense of other theories of human nature? It is very strange to me that these women are producing these books, with little reference to the other recent (copious!) research on motherhood in psychology, anthropology, sociology, feminist theory and even sociobiology and evolutionary biology. Their (less buzzed) work is much richer, complicated, nuanced and yes, sometimes ambiguous. Which doesn't necessarily make for good journalism - or for a story about extremes like the ones Lisa Belkin specializes in.

    Also (another leg or arm or finger?), I wonder how much experience Badinter actually has of American parenting in the last 20 years (and attachment parenting). Are her impressions based on a superficial reading on the internet, or from a dip into some American literature like "The Mommy Myth" and Warner's "Perfect Madness"? Because many portrayals of AP and "intensive" parenting are heavily skewed towards wealthy East (sometimes West) Coast practices. Melissa Faye Greene's description hits much closer to the mark for me!

    I guess I'll have to get Badinter's book out of the library and actually read it sometime. Maybe I resurrect my abandoned blog to do a review. I've been seduced away from blogging by facebook, a parenting forum online, and goodreads, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are great points. I hadn't even considered how much experience she had of American parenting...I ended up feeling frustrated with Philosophy, after taking my 101 class. (I'm glad I took it, but still.) It felt so ridiculously cerebral, at the expense of anything like an a more complete human experience, and so MALE. I'm not surprised that both of the women in question are doctors of philosophy, actually...

      Delete
  4. Oooh, and *another* thing.

    What about kids with special needs who require more intensive parenting?

    What does Badinter think a mother with a child with autism should do? The laissez-faire approach that she advocates doesn't work real well in that scenario.

    One solution to all of this: motherhood becomes a paid profession. Interestingly, France is further along in this respect (in terms of family support) than the U.S. I don't have any idea how various kinds of special needs are handled there, but from Druckerman's book it appears that kids that push the "core values" do not do well there. Surely their schools must have something like IEPs, however.

    I would love to see some cross-cultural comparisons of special needs parenting of different kinds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So true. Next time you should write the piece. :)

      Delete
    2. I went and did some Googling on "autism in France" and this was the first hit: France's Austism Treatment 'Shame'

      Delete
  5. A couple of interesting facts:

    1) Her billion-dollar PR firm represents Nestle, the biggest producer (I believe) of infant formula: http://google.com/search?q=badinter+nestle

    2) She is the 13th-most-wealthy person in France: http://google.com/search?q=badinter+billionaire

    The Google links point to articles from different perspectives on both accounts. Pertinent? I think so, particularly #1. But I'm notoriously skeptical of anyone's point of view when there is a potential financial advantage in that point of view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These are both extremely interesting facts.

      Delete
    2. UGH. That would have been nice to know. Thanks for doing my research for me, Dad. :)

      Delete
    3. Once again, one can't help but wonder about the influence of money.....

      Delete
    4. For someone with a billion $ PR firm, she comes off as quite the patronizing know-it-all.

      Delete
  6. I'm from SMs too ;-)

    I've always abhored the word "feminist" - we're all HUMAN BEINGS, damnit. (that said, I've been protesting my ass off here in TX over "women's issues" and I have just let the semantics go...)

    At any rate, I was the WOHM, my husband was the SAHD, and let me tell you, in the early years, I was gobsmacked at the backhanded insults we both got about who was staying home with the kid. It so happens that we were both unexpectedly unemployed right after my son was born and our deal was 'whoever gets the job first goes to work, the other one stays home with the kiddo' and I got a job first. And a good thing too - my husband was WAY better at "doing nothing" all day with our son, where I would have probably...I dunno, lol, I'm just glad my patience/psyche was never tested by days at home on end with a toddler...

    I guess I'm lucky that my husband is pretty damned enlightened (or just hippy-dude lazy, who knows? I don't care, we're good!) and was proud to be the primary care giver for our son. I just wish he had been as happy to do dishes & laundry...guess you can't really have it ALL, eh? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I discussed this with my husband (and I hope he will speak for himself too), he brought up the patronizing attitude that Badinter took toward men, which points to what you are saying. He said that SOMEONE has to sacrifice family time to provide income and he often wishes it could be him. He sees it as a sacrifice, not a privilege, although he likes his work. He would rather work less and be with kids more. I guess, in an ideal world, the options would be more open along gender lines.

      Delete
    2. I've always embraced the word feminist, AMG. But I agree with all your other points. :-)

      Delete
  7. I am still reading the original post but I want to comment on this one piece:
    "Intensive parenting" may certainly be appropriate for many women who see it as a way to give a noble meaning to their life. Indeed, to succeed in making our children well-adjusted and fulfilled adults is a great cause. But I wonder about the term "intensive". Is this really what our children need? Shouldn't we also teach them a bit of loneliness, boredom, frustration and self-sufficiency? The question is open and we won't know the answer until they grow up."

    I am afraid I see some very strong examples of "intensive parenting" at the middle school where I serve as a guidance counselor. There are too many cases where a mom (more often than dad) is hovering over their child, overseeing everything, going to bat for their child on everything, not giving their child room to make and learn from mistakes. This parent is entertaining and enabling in an unhealthy way. My observation is that this style of parenting fits more often with a mom who has little going on outside of her children. Perhaps not so healthy for her or her children (remember, we are talking 11, 12, 13 year olds here).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely know what you mean about that. I see that kind of thing, too, since I work at a school–the parents who actually show up to spend recess WITH their kindergartner. I guess I tend to think that the error (or what I see as an error) they are making is more one of making their role more into a doing thing than a being thing and, in so doing, cheating their kids of the chance to develop some independence. I think it is totally possible to avoid this and still be a SAHM, but it takes more intention because it is easier to get confused. I think moms who have a lot of purpose in the world have the easiest time with this as parents, whether they work for pay or not.

      Delete
    2. I have to admit that I agreed with that part of the article, too. Some people would probably consider me an "intensive" mother because I breastfed, co-slept, dropped out of the workforce, etc. But I find myself more and more in a position of being scolded by other parents for not being intensive enough because I give my children a very long tether, empower them to be bored, work out their own problems, etc. It is another way for us to separate and judge each other based on very little knowledge of the inner workings of the families involved or the personalities of the children involved. All of that speaks to Tara's initial point of the "mean girls" and the energy we waste criticizing and tearing each other down.

      Delete
    3. <>

      This really is an interesting quote, because it echoes much of what Druckerman claims is at the root of a French parenting ethos. She says French children are taught to wait for things a lot more than American kids, and given a lot more independence and freedom within certain strict limits (like week-long field trips sponsored by the school system).

      On the other hand, I haven't actually seen a whole lot of the (uniquely American??) intensive or helicopter hovering that I see decried everywhere, and that Graciewilde describes in her middle school (above). Perhaps it's where I live now (a small town not too far from Ann Arbor, not Manhattan or LA), or perhaps it's the social circles I'm in now - my 9th grader has special needs, so I'm not into competitive mothering or school sports circles etc. I volunteer a lot at my younger daughter's school, though, and except for an excess of chaperones clamoring to go along on the cool field trips, I haven't seen too many apron-strings.

      I actually wrote about this in more detail in a blog post I did seven years ago, when I was pissed off after reading "Perfect Madness" by Judith Warner: ( http://imponderabilia.blogspot.com/2009/07/perfect-madness-book-review.html ), LOL

      My husband & I have *had* to be more intense about parenting, because my son requires it. One of us had to walk him to school until he was in 4th grade, because he wouldn't have gotten there otherwise. We give him a ride to school, because he would have been bullied and called "retard" on the bus. (He already deals with that enough at school). We had to advocate for him in countless IEP meetings, manifestation of disability meetings, etc., and if I hadn't sat with him and given him one problem at a time and explained each step in math homework for the last ten years, he wouldn't be (barely!) passing Algebra I right now, despite his rather high IQ.

      I see a lot more kids falling through the cracks because their parents don't care, I guess, because my son's issues often put him close to kids with other behavioral & disciplinary issues. A lot of these kids obviously have undiagnosed problems, and some of them are probably going to end up in jail because they didn't have parents who had the resources or energy to advocate, educate, and get therapy and medication for them the way we've done for my son.

      I guess what I want to say is there can be a thin line between advocacy and enabling. I really wanted to be a laid-back mother of free-range kids, dammit! - and I think you could be that after breast-feeding, co-sleeping, and sling-wearing your infant & toddler. (Did I leave out any of the AP practices? Does Attachment Parenting for babies automatically equal "intensive" parenting for older kids? Have I gone off on enough tangents yet? Are you all totally sick of my parentheses?)

      Delete
    4. Agggh, the brackets I put around the quote made it disappear when I hit post:

      ::"Intensive parenting" may certainly be appropriate for many women who see it as a way to give a noble meaning to their life. Indeed, to succeed in making our children well-adjusted and fulfilled adults is a great cause. But I wonder about the term "intensive". Is this really what our children need? Shouldn't we also teach them a bit of loneliness, boredom, frustration and self-sufficiency?::

      this is what I meant to repeat at the beginning of my long-winded post. :-)

      Delete
  8. Re: the line: "The whole issue of "intensive good mother" excludes men from the care of infants.".....

    Sadly, I want to admit that I was an "intensive good mother" in those first six years of my mothering. I withdrew from the work force and put all my attention with the two babies (22 months apart). I saw myself as the "resident expert" and I think I ultimately shortchanged both my children and their dad. B/c I made the child related decisions and b/c he wasn't called on to do much with the children (other than read and change an occasional diaper) , he really didn't have that same connection that I had. I wish now that I would have been unselfish enough to share that more with him. I wanted it all. I thought I was the expert (it was true that I was the oldest daughter in a large family and was very comfortable with babies and children... and he was an only child and knew very little about said subjects....).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point. I will have to think on this. It is possible I have gone somewhat this way, and yet I treasure the special relationship I have with my kids. I think my husband has a very different role with them that is equally important, but he is not the guy who is going to remember to pack your PB & J the way you like it.

      Delete
    2. And I think I took all that away from him. I wanted the children to myself. I stayed home with them, I made them my life for those six years. My husband went to work and made his way in the professional world and, at the time, I was happy b/c the kids were "my department" and earning money was his. Meh.

      Delete
    3. Graciewilde - I am very interested in your perspective on this since you are on the other end of motherhood now. I wonder sometimes what things I will look back on and think "Wow, why did I do that?!"

      Delete
    4. TL - you know what I find fascinating? While in the process of active parenting, I would occasionally wonder if I had any regrets about any parts of the process and I always came up with a NO -- now? I see if very differently and I do have regrets - or, more kindly, I would reconsider some of my parenting years. I might even reconsider parenting. period. but that's another post. There's something to be said for perspective. I will, however, give myself credit for doing the best I knew how to do -- I put my heart and soul into the job and I can never fault myself for that. From my professional experience, I think many parents are doing the best they know how to do I also know some parents are about putting their own needs ahead of their children's needs - that doesn't work for me. When you choose to be a parent, you (I think) choose to step aside for 18+ years and allow your child to have what he or she needs to be healthy - in every way. Not easy, for sure. And can be confusing and limiting and unclear. But, as I recently noted in some blog post or another that I wrote, parenting is about giving , giving, giving and, oh yes, giving some more. Don't go there if you can't be unselfish.
      Boy, did I get off track but oh well.....

      Delete
    5. This is one of those things I guess we won't know til we get there! I agree–your perspective is so interesting. Already, parenting has taken me so many varied places, from hovering to flirting with neglect, in my worst moments. To be honest, I never feel I am quite a fit for either the working mom group or the SAHM group or any group. Same old story.

      I parent with a lot of attention to being. I advocate. But I don't feel interested in attending every field trip, orchestrating the class parties, joining the PTA. I feel like I am trying to be in relationship with my kids as other human beings–a very special kind, with certain, special needs–and I see my job mostly as looking at what they need to be empowered and trying to find that or find conversations that will empower them (sometimes to have with them, sometimes with a teacher etc.) and then kind of back offing and letting it unfold.

      I find it hard to work a 40 hr a week job and do all this properly, but that's because of things like dinner, carpools to soccer and my energy level. (To tell the truth, I work 40 hrs a week when I add in writing time anyway.)I often feel guilty when I realize how little I hover compared to other moms. Only in the moment. Later, I feel glad, because I think my kids are strong, neither neglected nor coddled. Anyway, I think I'd be the same kind of mom whether I worked at all for pay or not. I'd just volunteer more or keep a cleaner house or start painting.

      I still wouldn't bake a lot of cupcakes. Cuz it's just not me.

      Delete
    6. Graciewilde, I think you need to stop hitting yourself with the mommy-guilt stick. You did your best, and the weight of a lot of history and sociocultural assumptions about appropriate gender roles were behind your decisions, even if you wouldn't make the same decisions now. Can I ask how old you are? (I'm 49, if that makes any difference). I'm just curious about generational age, feminism, and choices. In many ways, I'm much more liberal (and much more of a feminist!) than my 26 y.o. niece - though I'm not sure how much of that is personal in nature.

      Delete
    7. @Graciewilde - I think you've hit the heart of the matter with your comment. I was writing to Tara about this yesterday. Regardless of parenting philosophy, ain't none of us going to do it all perfectly. We can walk into a professional situation and have a pretty clear idea of how to proceed, what we should do in a variety of situations, and confidence in our training and experience. Not so with parenting. It's always something new. We can understand the basics of child development but as these little people grow and learn and change, there's so many different shades of gray in every situation that arises. Most of us do the best we can with the tools that we have, but there's always that nagging "Am I doing this right?" in the back of the skull. Add to that the fact that it's an unpaid job that we can't ever quit, we can't get a divorce when we think "This just isn't working for me", and we can't go back and edit our mistakes, and everybody and their dog has an opinion about what you're doing wrong, or what you could do better... it's no wonder we have regrets, suffer depression, feel lonely and isolated, sometimes even bitter and resentful.
      The only thing that any of us can do is stop all that and think: "Hey, I'm doing the best I can" and have a little faith - in ourselves, our abilities, in these little people who will one day turn into big people. I think that's why books and articles like this ruffle our feathers so. We're out there treading water and someone tosses us what looks like it might be a life preserver and it's made of stone.

      Delete
    8. Yeah... i am pretty good with the mommy guilt thing - goes along with everything about my upbringing and my bleeding heart liberal side and my save the world side - You are so right, Sandy. I absolutely did do the best I knew how to do - and, and by all measures, my children are responsible and compassionate members of society. I am 58. I was in college 1971 - 1977 and back for grad school 1981- 1983. My first marriage was replete with physical abuse and my undergrad university in CA was on the forefront of the women't movement. There were a number of classes in feminist studies - one of the first to have a major in that arena - and the Women't center on campus was the entity that held my hand as I navigated the disillusionment of that marriage.
      It had a profound and lasting impact on me.
      TL, I think I thought you could do it perfectly - raise children. I was determined and I had two teaching credentials AND the MA / Counseling AND I grew up taking care of kids. I thought I knew it all. But most people do when they are starting out.... The shades of gray blindsided me. It was not as clear and obvious as I ever thought. I am still reeling from the way the stars fell out of the sky over 20+ years. And self medicating...

      Delete
  9. My sister joined our church Mom's group and I was horrified to discover how the women ganged up on her to put down her choices to vaccinate her children, or to stick with a doctor she loves and trusts and that means a VBAC. Our pastor's wife was actively praying that my sister would discover the truth and turn away from the lies of the medical community. I can not begin to form the words to express my true feelings, but I did feel like knocking some mean girls down on the playground. Unfortunately, this is not a playground, it is a group of adult women who think it is acceptable to make a young mother feel bad about herself. Motherhood is a treacherous business as it is. We do not need other women to help us question every thing we do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen! In much the same way that I want to decide what to do with my life, I want others to decide and be okay with their choices (I will add that I hope there is solid sound reasoning behind not vaccinating children - whooping cough is deadly).

      Delete
    2. This is just really disturbing to me Michelle! Life is so much more art than science (and I love science). In my experience answers are readily available, but incredibly capricious. Yesterday's right answer can very likely become tomorrow's problem. Parenting seems a moving target, and one that is very dear to me! Do you remember Amy Chua? The Dragon Mom. I thought she was pretty interesting and wish the controversy she started had received intelligent and thoughtful discussion, rather than righteous indignation and shallow and poorly reasoned answers. See my thoughts on that here: Remember the Tiger Mom?.

      Delete
    3. I hate when I see that kind of thing done to a new mom. That is when you feel the most vulnerable.

      Delete
    4. I hope your sister found another mom's support group. That makes me so sad, because I got so much of lasting value (including an introduction to blogging!) from the group I joined after my son was born (Mothers & More - they're all about supporting choices).

      Delete
  10. SO agreed! Feminism is about the rights of women to make the choices that are best for them. (And their families, should they choose to have families.) I've embraced the "good enough mother" philosophy: my husband and I make our choices based on our beliefs and who we and our son are as a developing family. I blog about this quite a bit; it's what makes our family who we are, and what makes me who I am as a woman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Jenn. And here's her blog for anyone who is interested: http://mamaturg.blogspot.com/ I think what you have described is the essence of feminist mothering.

      Delete
  11. I believe motherhood is our nature. To say that motherhood of any kind 'undermines' us is a huge insult. Motherhood IS my fulfilling career.
    I read the blurb for the book on Amazon, and the line that motherhood is "tethering women to the home and family" brings to mind an image of a dog chained to a house. Yes, I stay at home, but that in no way infringes on my freedom to be who I want to be.

    Women need each other. We are part of a huge sisterhood. When we diminish each other by minimizing our lives and choices, we damage that sisterhood. We can be powerful and influential, and even more so as a group who supports each other. I completely agree with your mean girl analogy. We need to stop beating each other up for being different.

    At the end of the day, I have 8 children who are healthy and happy. They are on their way to becoming strong adults. I can't think of anything that would be more successful than that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm - motherhood as nature? Respectfully, I am not sure I agree. I think it has been a cultural imperative and that is one thing our mothers, aunts and younger versions of our very own selves (if we are old enough and, sadly, I am) tried to break out of. Pre-1970 or so, it was assumed that women would become mothers and , yes, I think there was a cultural myth that suggested that everything mother was wonderful. I am grateful that now, young women can say, "No, thank you" and children are not necessarily being brought into the world without the full support of two parents. I have now learned that everything "mother" was not wonderful - for me. It was hard and there were more tough moments than I ever thought possible. And I came to motherhood with lots of experience with babies and children having been the oldest daughter in a large family. I was tough on myself as a mother and am only recently discovering the price I paid in lost identity and loneliness. And I know that is MY story and I am jazzed that there are women who are in their element as mothers. I am also glad that there are options for those of us who falter too much. Does that make sense?

      Delete
    2. I think that both of these points of view–both stories of being a woman–are so valid and important. It is hard for mothers for whom mothering has been deeply meaningful and fulfilling to hear that some women have not found it so. And it can be hard for some women who had a really hard time with motherhood to stand up in the face of maternal bliss. I am so proud of this community for being able to hold both viewpoints respectfully.

      I probably fall somewhere in between myself. Motherhood is very fulfilling to me and yet I wouldn't characterize it as my career, although I would have at another point in my life for sure and that was fine, too.

      I had a friend with three sons. One died of AIDS and another died of addiction...and this was a wonderful woman. A woman who mothered lovingly, who invested her heart in her children. So, I guess humility tells me it does not all necessarily have to be peaches and cream. And yet it is deeply, deeply meaningful, even in its failures. Perhaps, especially so.

      Jewels, I love what you said about sisterhood. I think that sisterhood is strong enough to bind together all sorts of experiences. Loving motherhood. Not loving it. And everything in between.

      Delete
    3. I have to agree with Gracie here - motherhood may be natural, but so, unfortunately, are things like infanticide (Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's "Mother Nature" was really eye-opening for me when it came to thinking about maternal instincts!).

      I do agree with Jewels in all other respects, though - that motherhood *can* be totally fulfilling (at least for some women!), that women need each other and need to respect others' choices, and that raising good adults is incredibly undervalued in our society. Maybe it *is* undervalued because it is unpaid, and our culture is so materialistic?

      Look at how much teachers make in our society (the good ones don't make enough, imo, and don't even get me started on the fact that teacher's aides for special needs kids get paid less than they would earn cooking hamburgers at McD's) - they have *so* much influence over our kids (unless you homeschool) and yet get so little respect in general.

      Delete
    4. Motherhood is hard. But, if you asked a doctor, CEO, or lawyer if their jobs were easy, I doubt they'd say yes. Anything we do that is worthwhile is hard. Perhaps because our successes and failures have to do with human beings that we are responsible for (and love fiercely), we feel it more. Or maybe it's because the world is looking down on us and what we do.
      If a woman chooses not to be a mother, I'm fine with that. But, I shudder to think that women would choose not to be mothers simply because it's hard.

      Delete
    5. So beautifully said. I am reminded that writers are the best people to have conversation like this with. Every comment is poetry. And you make an excellent point. Like most things we do, motherhood is much harder than it seems that it will be. So, I think most women don't choose not to do it because it's hard. But, retrospectively, some mothers stand aghast at how hard it really was. I have found it to be, so far, harder but also more natural to me than I expected, all at the same time, even the teenage bit (so far–I'm only up to 14!) I have never wished I hadn't done it. Not so far.

      Delete
  12. Wow, such a great conversation! Thanks Tara for starting this. I'm really excited by what I'm reading, and you have articulated the points I was trying to communicate quite well.

    I think this topic has pretty broad implications, many of which were beautifully explored by Marilyn Waring. I wrote an article about this topic a couple of years back, which Tara has read, but someone else might be interested in it: A Woman's Worth.

    I took care of developmentally and physically disabled adults for several years, when I lived in Northern California. That was the most fulfilling and meaningful job I've ever had and it paid crap. I feel our economic system fails utterly to assign value in many important arenas where value is obviously created. I feel also, that our economic system fails to charge costs in arenas where the cost is much greater than simply producing some product. Who is footing the bill for the Gulf oil spill?

    I think this national conversation about intensive mothering is limited to a certain socioeconomic class. That women who live in or near poverty don't have the luxury of these concerns. They are often focused on being able to find or keep a minimum wage job (maybe more than one). Find or keep a house/apartment to live in. Keep food in the house and the electricity on.

    Finally, it does frustrate me that I can't spend more time with my kids. I work a lot of hours in order to support my family. Then, I volunteer as a soccer coach and a Sunday school teacher. I attend Tae Kwon Do classes with two of my kids, but I don't feel that I get enough time with them. My eldest is 14 and he'll possibly be moving out in four years (if the economy allows). I can still remember him falling asleep in my lap, when he was five and it seems like a few days has passed since then, not a decade.

    I'd love to have more time, to help with science fair projects or teach computer programming. To remember math and physics so I can help with those subjects. There is that planned but never started tree-fort. Time is precious and mine has many claims placed on it. Somehow, my inability to spend enough time with my kids and help them grow into responsible members of society seems linked to the problem that our economic system considers a stay at home parent (usually mom) indigent for purposes of GNP. Stated another way, a stay at home parent is not producing anything of value and is therefore not as useful (again in our economic system) as a 13 year old child, who has been kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery. There is something really wrong in this system, in our values. Maybe this is the heart or lungs of the corpse in the living room?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A stay at home parent is not producing anything of value and is therefore not as useful..." This attitude is the crux of it all for me. Since when are people of no value? What are children, if not small people? I think you're right, Mike. I think those things are directly linked. It's not a feminist issue. It's a human issue.

      Delete
    2. I think that's, as Mike says, the whole source of the problem: how we assign value. In that book, by Marilyn Waring, she discovered that those original UN documents which became the financial policy for all member states began with a single document entitled: How to Pay for the War.

      Delete
    3. Definitely the heart of the matter (corpse), Michael. (Btw, are you Tara's dh?).

      I think I've echoed a lot of what you've said about the value of caregiving.

      I hate to keep referencing myself, but if you really want to read some mind-boggling excerpts on motherhood and gender roles, you should check out a review I did of Darla Shine's Happy Housewives.

      Delete
    4. I loved your post, Mike. Here in Utah, we are at the bottom of the list for spending money on our students. My sister, who has been teaching for 20+ years, says it's because our teachers are doing such a good job with their limited resources. The legislature looks at the results and says, 'They're doing fine with what we give them, so no more.'
      I hate when politicians spout about how children are our most important resource, then go on to spend our money on anything but education.

      Delete
    5. Sandy, I just read your review. That book makes me want to throw up. Honestly, I'm amazed that anyone would have published it. As a 'frumpy mom' who is not thin and rarely wears makeup, if she crashed her cart into my fat a**, I'd have to sit on her. She makes motherhood into something to be laughed at, not to mention how she makes men seem like neanderthals.

      Delete
    6. Just a note - slightly off topic - that oh how I WISH my husband were here more hours of the day. Especially the hour or so I'm struggling to help my son with his algebra, which is not my favorite subject.

      Delete
    7. That is a TERRIBLE book, Sandy. I don't think I could have read enough of it to review it. So vapid. There is something very discomfiting about the casual slander of the entire male race in these discussions...Why on earth would you want to marry someone you don't want to talk to? And, yes, Mike is my dh. I think I just broke one or two of my own rules...

      Delete
  13. I just got glance at these, but I just want to say I've been married for28years, to a lovely human being with increadable empathy and twice my earning power, he did not design this world and works hard with his mind and his hands and his heart, he takes care of me and I take care of him. he makes money and I take care of family and community and make money whene I can.
    it's true that this makes me financially vulnerable but that's not his fault or mine, we both live in a world someone else designed, that doesn't value what we do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AMEN. If there is a patriarchy that is marginalizing women and children (and I would argue that there is), it isn't composed of individual men who are working hard to support their families. It is systemic and it victimizes men as well.

      Delete
  14. OK, I'm definitely doing my part to keep the comment fairies alive today. But I just had a lot of fun reading stuff about Badinter and attachment parenting today.

    Some highlights:

    Sustainable Parenting - I particularly liked this one because of the George Carlin quote. :-)

    When Did Attachment Parenting Go Mainstream and Why Was I Not Told?

    Feministe Comments

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the links. I'll throw those into my Friday wrap-up thing for sure. Good stuff.

      Delete
    2. The comment fairies thank you to! I have really enjoyed all of your comments! Thanks for joining the conversation. This has been a great discussion!

      Delete
  15. Hello Tara! Mike suggested I join the conversation and I'm grateful for his prompt. Indeed, this is a very interesting subject. I have to say that I agree with you when you say, "I reject a claim to feminism on behalf of any woman whose argument is about devaluing what is held dear by women, insulting the choices they make..." I believe all women have the right to make their own choices without having to fear the backlash of anyone, feminists or not. We should be able to decide if we want to stay home with our children, work outside of the home, or remain child free. I find it arrogant and obtrusive that anyone would dare judge those who act differently or don't agree with their way of thinking. However, I respectfully disagree with the last part of your sentence "suggesting that they, instead, behave more like men." I don't believe feminists suggest we behave like men because then that would be fueling the fire of patriarchy, something we have been struggling to debunk for ages. Feminists have been stereotyped as "ball busting" women who want to hate and overthrow men and nothing could be farther from the truth. As a third wave feminist, I believe in personal empowerment. I believe every woman has a right to make choices that better her circumstances. It is through personal empowerment that we can invoke social change. We shouldn't have to compete with men, nor should we have to see them as the enemy. But sadly, we live in a male dominated society and as such, we have to act or grin and bear it. It's not about being more like a man, it's about being a determined woman hell bent on acquiring the same rights as men. Do these women appear mean out of fear? I don't think so. I think they appear mean because they're willing to go to whatever lengths are necessary to ensure we don't get cheated out of the same rights as our counterparts. Can women be mean to other women? Absolutely. And that makes me sad because unity in the sisterhood cannot be achieved while members of our gender are acting out on their insecurities.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks for joining the conversation. Perhaps "behave more like men" is a sloppy statement. I even second-guessed it a bit as I was composing. What I mean–and would stand by–though is this: I think Badinter is promoting patriarchal values. The values that say nurture is not important, bodily care is not important, perhaps even bodies are not so important. These are the values of the almighty dollar, the credential, the list of wins. Those have been values that are traditionally more male in our society. Now they are available to women. But what if not all women want them?

    This is the same kind of short-sidedness (the big ISM that blends all -isms together) that would dictate that a tribal society would NECESSARILY be happier living not off the land but working for companies, so that money can be exchanged and somehow, because numbers can be shown on paper, lives are said to be enriched. Part of this process includes the dictate that women leave their children to the care of other women, who are then paid to look after them, further stratifying society. But why is that better? It is better only if a woman wants the stimulation of work. And I think it is a patriarchal value.

    So I would argue that Badinter and her ilk are not really feminists at all. Hellbent on winning rights? Maybe some women. I think, not this one.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have some serious catching up to do. I don't want to jump in, in the middle of the conversation, before reading your preceding posts. Hold my spot, I'll be back :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Okay, I think I'm caught up, though probably tailgating this conversation at this point, more than actively participating in it.

    I just wanted to add the French perspective. As the French-educated parent of a child attending a French school, I can promise you that the helicopter parenting and the constant competition between women about parenting issues is more of a cultural/American thing than not. French parents let the schools and organized education do the work or raising kids with a pronounced penchant for analytic thinking and self-sufficiency. Fact is, French schools, even in the US, don't really have active PTA or PTOs, the role of parents is usually that of spectators. I'm not sure how this fits in the conversation, but I just wanted to put it out there. I'll try to catch the next discussion from the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to say, I might like French schools. I was on our PTA board last year and it left a bad taste in my mouth. I got so tired of going to meetings where mothers tried to 'one up' each other with how involved they were. Then there were the mothers of 'gifted' children who thought their kids had more rights than any other. I didn't continue with the PTA because I felt like it was more of a clique than anything else.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Megan! That's a great perspective! And Jewels. I have to admit to a certain amount of agreement with this–as a staff member at a school, when I am thinking of the overbearing parents (and the parents of certain gifted kids can definitely be especially entitled. Then there is the perspective Sandy D. brought to remember, which is that some kids with special needs or difficulties NEED more involvement. So, there is that middle ground. At schools, we always hope for those parents who are in between–neither in your face nor leaving it all to the schools. Cultural differences continue to fascinate me...

      Delete
    3. Jewel: The equivalent of the "PTA" at my daughter's school is called Parent Planning Committee and that defines its supportive/supplementary role accurately, as far as I'm concerned (planning field trips, light fundraising, etc.) It puts the social aspect of the group exactly where it needs to be.

      Tara: I am not a completely hands-off parent, au contraire, I follow my kid's progress like a hawk, but from a distance. The truth is that I don't really have much to do, it's all taken care of, save for the unusual/rare occasion which requires my intervening to clarify a misunderstanding here and there. The peace of mind is priceless; it gives me free reign to focus my helicopter-parenting elsewhere :)

      Delete
  19. It is hard to imagine adding anything of real value to this discussion at this late date, especially with all the brilliance in the comments here. :) I will say that I've had a theory for years about the judgment issue. I firmly believe that the decisions moms get the most wound up about are not the ones they are most certain about but the ones they are the most insecure about. If we are comfortable in our own decisions and choices, the choices and decisions of another should have no real impact upon us. There would be no need to spew invective and attack the other path(s) if we were completely comfortable with our own choices. If we are not at peace with our own path (and maybe we never are completely, but let's call it having a preponderence of peace), then everyone else's path can seem to reflect upon our own. I truly believe that the essence of smug self-righteousness is most times its exact opposite. This may not actually be the case, but it helps me feel a measure of compassion for all those grown-up mean girls out there. And, too, helps me head my own reflexive judgments (stealth defensiveness) off at the pass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What she said. I always think that about MM's comments and posts. She's got a scalpel, that one does. She just cuts it right down to the bone. Hear, hear! (Or is it Here, here? I never know.)

      Delete
    2. Jumping in here very, very late, but interested. I think the mean girls aspect is definitely the result of personal insecurity.

      I'm a mom, of a now-grown offspring. I loved being a mom, I worked very hard at being a mom, trying to balance being supportive and involved, with encouraging my child to be independent. I found motherhood very fulfilling, but I also know women (and men) who are childless by choice, who I believe made the right decision for themselves. I also know moms (and dads) who had children "because they were supposed to" and IMO, did a really crappy job at parenthood. They openly resented their kids for taking up so much time and energy and resources, and I think it would be better, not if those kind of parents became "more involved" with their kids, but if they had felt freer and more supported not to have kids in the first place, as a valid social choice. Also have seen mothers who are so enmeshed with their children that even as 30+ y.o. adults the "children" are calling or texting Mom for support/advice 3-4 times a day.

      Many more than those who are, IMO, bad parents, are those working really, really hard to do the best job of being parents they can. In retrospect, could some of them been a little more involved HERE, a little more hand-off THERE? Sure, but they were trying their best, often while busting their tails to try to keep said kids fed and clothed.

      Parenting is hard, hard work, and we don't value it enough - not socially, not emotionally, and certainly not financially. IMO, we should support those who choose to become parents - both male and female - with options for parental leave, flex-time, and pay those in the teaching, child care and special education professions probably double what they make now. We should also support those people who are brave enough to say out loud, "I really don't want kids," instead of pressuring them that they don't really MEAN it, or they will change their minds later, etc. If "children are the future" maybe we should put our money where our slogans are.

      Delete
    3. Welcome, and it's never too late to jump in!

      "Parenting is hard, hard work, and we don't value it enough - not socially, not emotionally, and certainly not financially."

      You are so right. I think it comes down to providing choice, and support for choice. When we have done as a society, we will have put our money where our mouth is and supported women, children, motherhood, life AND choice–all in one fell swoop.

      Delete
  20. I all the time emailed this weblog post page to all my
    friends, because if like to read it after that my contacts will too.
    Feel free to surf my web-site ; Work at home

    ReplyDelete
  21. WOW just what I was searching for. Came here by searching for how to
    get rid of acne overnight
    Also visit my weblog :: rid acne scars

    ReplyDelete

When you comment, it keeps fairies alive.

Don't forget to choose "subscribe by email" to receive follow-up comments. I almost always reply to comments, and you wouldn't want to miss that. It's all part of saving the fairies.

My Zimbio
Creative Commons License
Faith in Ambiguity by Tara Adams is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License