What do you think about this article?

[TranquilMind]

But I keep getting knocked down by people who are way more rabid than I am, my feelings get hurt, and I want to crawl in a hole and never talk to anyone again. :tongue_smilie::lol:

 

You can join me. I have room in my hole...and would appreciate some company.

[TranquilMind]

Don't know about you ladies, but I was a pretty great mother before the kids came along!

 

Me too.

[Mrs Mungo]

I had a nurse say this once when I was at a doctor's office with my kids (and at that point, I only had 5, lol) She said it right in front of my children, that she would kill herself if she had to stay home.

 

What is the difference between that bothering you and an "I am a mother first and most importantly," quote bothering a mom who works outside of the home?

[Marylou]

Making a joke about suicide is ALWAYS inappropriate.

[6packofun]

Well, I think it's silly to have to refer to oneself as a person first...uh, duh? Yes, we're all people. ?? Citizen? Again, duh. That's a state of being that we don't even choose (although, yes, I could change my citizenship and then it's yet another state of being that is static) so why would I identify with the obvious *first*? Boring.

 

I do think it's important for women to understand priorities in their identity. As a Christian, mine will be different from a non-Christian feminist who is having an identity crisis. I am a follower of Christ first, wife second, mother third and then there are a host of other roles and relationships. ALL of those are relationally defined and I don't see a thing wrong with that. Even "I'm an employee at company XYZ or I'm a graphic designer" has some relational component to it and so what?

[6packofun]

LOL! :tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

Making a joke about suicide is ALWAYS inappropriate.

 

 

You may feel that way personally, but I disagree that it is culturally/socially inappropriate. It is pretty common for people to say, "I would kill myself before I..." or ", if I had to..."

Edited October 19, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[oceanseve]

Making a joke about suicide is ALWAYS inappropriate.

 

 

:iagree:

[I.Dup.]

What is the difference between that bothering you and an "I am a mother first and most importantly," quote bothering a mom who works outside of the home?

 

Seriously?? I guess we won't ever see eye to eye.

 

I find it extremely inappropriate to make a joke about suicide if someone had to do something I was doing, in front of my young children. I was not outraged, I didn't do anything other than laugh awkwardly, I didn't attack her or even confront her about what she said.

[oceanseve]

You may feel that way personally, but I disagree that it culturally/socially inappropriate. It is pretty common for people to say, "I would kill myself before I..." or ", if I had to..."

 

 

That's like saying people shouldn't get upset because Tosh.0 was making rape jokes at a woman in the audience's expense because people tell rape jokes, it's no big deal.

[Mrs Mungo]

Seriously?? I guess we won't ever see eye to eye.

 

You are probably right.

 

I find it extremely inappropriate to make a joke about suicide if someone had to do something I was doing, in front of my young children. I was not outraged, I didn't do anything other than laugh awkwardly, I didn't attack her or even confront her about what she said.

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

That's like saying people shouldn't get upset because Tosh.0 was making rape jokes at a woman in the audience's expense because people tell rape jokes, it's no big deal.

 

I have never heard someone tell a r*pe joke. Have you? In real life? Do you think they are considered culturally or socially appropriate?

 

I have said *here* that I cannot watch certain comedies because I would commit Hari Kari (which, yes, I know, is a b*stardization of the word) if I was placed in some of those situations. Meaning, it is *too* uncomfortable for me to watch other people in those situations. I do not find it funny...at all.

 

I hear that sort of thing all of the time. So, that is a poor comparison, IMO.

[mommymilkies]

You may feel that way personally, but I disagree that it is culturally/socially inappropriate. It is pretty common for people to say, "I would kill myself before I..." or ", if I had to..."

 

IMO, there's a difference between a joke and saying it a way that indicates being with your children would make it worse than dying. Especially when said in front of kids-worse yet, your own kids! I feel very sorry for those kids.

[I.Dup.]

What is the difference between that bothering you and an "I am a mother first and most importantly," quote bothering a mom who works outside of the home?

 

I have no idea because I truly cannot understand why someone would spew vitriol and personal attacks against someone who stated that "they are a mother first and most importantly." I am going by the conversation last night in regards to this article, that is what I posted about. I did not even say that "I am a mother first and most importantly." I called the author's view selfish, said that ideally women would be willing to give up a few years for their young children, and received hateful, personal attacks by people I do not even know, telling me things about my own happiness level, what my children do and don't do, etc.

 

I find the suicide comment upsetting because it is making young children out to be so terrible that someone would rather die than be around them.

[Mrs Mungo]

True...people say similar things all the time "I could have just died" or, "I was so mad I could have killed him."

 

Exactly. It is just an exaggeration.

 

IMO, there's a difference between a joke and saying it a way that indicates being with your children would make it worse than dying. Especially when said in front of kids-worse yet, your own kids! I feel very sorry for those kids.

 

Their feelings are not a judgment of your choice. Their feeling that they don't want to be "mom first" is not a judgment on the fact that you do. The fact that you are a "mom first" is not a judgment on their choice to work outside the home. That is the problem with these discussions, every person's feelings is somehow deemed to be a judgment of everyone else.

[SKL]

IMO, there's a difference between a joke and saying it a way that indicates being with your children would make it worse than dying. Especially when said in front of kids-worse yet, your own kids! I feel very sorry for those kids.

 

I think the worst part of it is that it was a nurse saying this to someone who might be stressed out. People do actually kill themselves and it isn't funny.

 

That said, the thought "I want to kill myself" runs through my mind a lot. My mom used to say it when I was a kid, so I guess that's where that came from. I don't actually desire to die, but it comes to mind when I feel overwhelmed. I make a conscious effort to not say such things around my kids.

 

So no, I can't picture myself saying "I'd kill myself if I had to homeschool." But I might say "I'd be a basket case" or "I'd feel sorry for my kids" or some such. (Just because I personally don't have infinite patience.)

[mommymilkies]

Exactly. It is just an exaggeration.

 

 

 

Their feelings are not a judgment of your choice. Their feeling that they don't want to be "mom first" is not a judgment on the fact that you do. The fact that you are a "mom first" is not a judgment on their choice to work outside the home. That is the problem with these discussions, every person's feelings is somehow deemed to be a judgment of everyone else.

 

That's not what I was commenting on, just the fact that they would say that being with their kids more often would make them want to die. This was said recently by my dd's friend's mom in front of her dd, and she was obviously saddened by it. I can't feel sorry for her? That has nothing to do with her choice to not be a mother first, but her mode of attack against the child and the attack on my choice. Fwiw she was not a working mom. She sent her kids to school, after school club, and any and everything because like she said in front of her dd, she couldn't stand her.

[CheerioKid]

It's a shame you got bashed as badly as you did, no matter what your opinion. People need to think before they speak.

 

This occurred to me the other day, while I was listening to one of the debates. There are millions of employable people without jobs, at the same time there are millions of women putting their kids in daycare and working full time jobs.

 

Now, I know that NO candidate, or sitting president, for that matter, will have guts enough to even suggest it. It might not even occur to most people, but I wonder what might happen if the female secondary wage earners in America were to begin staying home with their children. This would make those jobs available for men who really need them, and MIGHT bring some balance back to this country. It would mean a reduction in income for the moms who chose to stay home, but what would each family, and the country as a whole, gain by having a new generation of children who were once again raised by their mother at home. I just wonder what would happen.

 

Before I get flamed, I'm not suggesting any sort of legislation requiring it by any means, I'm just saying it would be interesting to see what the effect would be.

 

(eta: obviously I have not read all the replies, I'm just responding to the OP)

Edited October 19, 2012 by CheerioKid

[Mrs Mungo]

I have no idea because I truly cannot understand why someone would spew vitriol and personal attacks against someone who stated that "they are a mother first and most importantly."

 

Because they are making the same mistake of taking it as a judgment of their choices. If everyone could stop doing that, then we might actually have productive conversations.

 

I am going by the conversation last night in regards to this article, that is what I posted about. I did not even say that "I am a mother first and most importantly." I called the author's view selfish, said that ideally women would be willing to give up a few years for their young children, and received hateful, personal attacks by people I do not even know, telling me things about my own happiness level, what my children do and don't do, etc.

 

Right. And the person who made the comment to YOU didn't say you were lazy or stupid or worthless for staying home with you kids. She was just saying that SHE didn't want to stay home with HER kids (and maybe you wouldn't want to stay home wither kids either).

 

I find the suicide comment upsetting because it is making young children out to be so terrible that someone would rather die than be around them.

 

It isn't about the kids. It is about the sameness, the boredom, the lack of friends, the exhaustion and everything people here complain about on a daily basis.

[oceanseve]

You are probably right.

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

I have never heard someone tell a r*pe joke. Have you? In real life? Do you think they are considered culturally or socially appropriate?

 

I have said *here* that I cannot watch certain comedies because I would commit Hari Kari (which, yes, I know, is a b*stardization of the word) if I was placed in some of those situations. Meaning, it is *too* uncomfortable for me to watch other people in those situations. I do not find it funny...at all.

 

I hear that sort of thing all of the time. So, that is a poor comparison, IMO.

 

Yes, growing up I heard rape jokes all the time. I grew up in a neighbor where I was the only girl and being a tomboy I was not seen as a girl to them, even through high school I still predominantly hung out with guys and rape jokes are incredibly common whether you hear them or not. Usually the "I would kill myself if..." is a female thing maybe that's why you think it's the norm and okay, but having close family and friends that have committed suicide, no, suicide jokes in any form are not funny. They perpetuate the idea that there are reasons worth killing yourself. As adults we can roll our eyes and ignore people, kids on the other hand don't understand it and unfortunately once ideas are in their head it's impossible to get them out. I attended a high school student's funeral on my birthday this year, go to a few of those and see how you feel about those jokes then.

[forty-two]

Well, I think it's silly to have to refer to oneself as a person first...uh, duh? Yes, we're all people. ?? Citizen? Again, duh. That's a state of being that we don't even choose (although, yes, I could change my citizenship and then it's yet another state of being that is static) so why would I identify with the obvious *first*? Boring.

 

I do think it's important for women to understand priorities in their identity. As a Christian, mine will be different from a non-Christian feminist who is having an identity crisis. I am a follower of Christ first, wife second, mother third and then there are a host of other roles and relationships. ALL of those are relationally defined and I don't see a thing wrong with that. Even "I'm an employee at company XYZ or I'm a graphic designer" has some relational component to it and so what?

 

Or maybe I'm just too stupid to see her point.

 

"HEYYYYY! I'm a PERSON! How come nobody acknowledges THAT????"

 

Ummm. What do you want, exactly? I mean, you have equal voting rights, you presumably have a social security card, a driver's license, and a passport if you want it. Is there some other secret token of personhood I haven't been informed about? What are they keeping from us dumb, ignorant moms? :bigear:.

 

Well, as a person who chooses to define herself as a person first, here's my two cents about why.

 

For me, it's not so much defining myself as a person, but defining myself as *me*. It may be obvious, but being me (a me who is redeemed by God) is nevertheless my core identity, and it is more than just the sum of all my relationships. I am a mother, and I am a wife - I have many different vocations - but at the core of them all is *me*.

 

And important things, no matter how obvious, can *never* go without saying, or else they will be taken for granted and eventually forgotten. (Or are you content with your dh never saying I love you, because he said it once, and it goes without saying he continues to feel that way until he lets you know otherwise ;).)

 

Also, identifying as a person first emphasizes our shared fellow humanity as more important than our various differences, and that meshes well with my beliefs about equality.

Edited October 19, 2012 by forty-two

[I.Dup.]

Because they are making the same mistake of taking it as a judgment of their choices. If everyone could stop doing that, then we might actually have productive conversations.

 

I agree. I knew even during the conversation they were taking my statements personally, even though I never intended them to be personal. I went back and read and re-read my comments and didn't find them offensive, and I tend to be very sensitive to not wanting to offend others, or recanting something if I find out it offends someone. But as soon as I shared my opinion, it was all over, because it was different from theirs.

 

 

Right. And the person who made the comment to YOU didn't say you were lazy or stupid or worthless for staying home with you kids. She was just saying that SHE didn't want to stay home with HER kids (and maybe you wouldn't want to stay home wither kids either).

 

It isn't about the kids. It is about the sameness, the boredom, the lack of friends, the exhaustion and everything people here complain about on a daily basis.

 

I understand. Honestly, the suicide comment didn't affect me terribly, the only reason I mentioned it was because another comment in the thread spurred my memory of it, and I still find it to be a sad comment. Not horrible, not inexcusable, just sad.

[mommymilkies]

I agree. I knew even during the conversation they were taking my statements personally, even though I never intended them to be personal. I went back and read and re-read my comments and didn't find them offensive, and I tend to be very sensitive to not wanting to offend others, or recanting something if I find out it offends someone. But as soon as I shared my opinion, it was all over, because it was different from theirs.

 

 

 

 

I understand. Honestly, the suicide comment didn't affect me terribly, the only reason I mentioned it was because another comment in the thread spurred my memory of it, and I still find it to be a sad comment. Not horrible, not inexcusable, just sad.

I agree. And one doesn't have to outright attack your choice by saying "you are stupid to stay home.". It was the sneer and the attitude and the look. I'm sure we've all had one of those about something or other. No matter what it is about, it is still sad to have that sort of attitude and talk in front of your children. As far as a nurse saying it-I would have been fired for that back when I worked in medicine. You never know everyone's mental health status or history, and that is very insensitive and unprofessional. S that right there would be my biggest issue with that one.

[Marylou]

Making a joke about suicide is ALWAYS inappropriate.

[justLisa]

Because they are making the same mistake of taking it as a judgment of their choices. If everyone could stop doing that, then we might actually have productive conversations.

 

 

Boy is that EVER the truth.

 

And OP if these people were not even on your page, then don't communicate with them again. People who call names and such are just not worth trying to have a conversation with.

 

I don't even get in to the controversial anything side of FB. But it seems deleting your entire account just because some people who don't know you called you names is a bit dramatic. They win. Unless you really hate FB, that is different. I like it because I do have some distant family that I can see pictures etc.

[I.Dup.]

But it seems deleting your entire account just because some people who don't know you called you names is a bit dramatic. They win. Unless you really hate FB, that is different. I like it because I do have some distant family that I can see pictures etc.

 

I totally agree. I feel stupid now. :tongue_smilie: But this wasn't the first conversation where I got my feelings hurt because I shared too much and was attacked for it. I have had family members block me, etc. So this isn't the first time something overly dramatic has happened. I know half of it is my fault for sharing too much, or being too blunt. I do not think I deserve the personal attacks though. I have already blocked my cousin, so none of her friends will be seeing my statuses anymore.

 

I will probably be back, because there are a lot of people I am in contact with on facebook that I wouldn't be in contact with otherwise, and I would miss them. :001_smile:

[SKL]

Also, identifying as a person first emphasizes our shared fellow humanity as more important than our various differences, and that meshes well with my beliefs about equality.

 

See, I take that for granted. Target groups are artificial. You're a woman, therefore you like language better than math, your budget includes a lot of shoes, bags, and makeup, and politicians can get your vote by promising more abortion rights and paid maternity leave. :glare: No, I'm a woman, therefore I'm a fully engaged member of society who happens to have female reproductive organs. Do we really need to say this? Maybe it doesn't do anything for me because I was single and childless until I was 40. There never seemed to be any question of my personhood then, so why would there be now?

 

I'm a mother just means I'm a woman who happens to have kids.

 

I'm a mother "first," to me, means that I put more emotional energy into raising my kids than anything else at this point in my life. It doesn't in any way take away from anything else, except maybe my workaholism and my adult social life, and that's by my free choice. Not because someone out there decided that for all mothers.

[justLisa]

I totally agree. I feel stupid now. :tongue_smilie: But this wasn't the first conversation where I got my feelings hurt because I shared too much and was attacked for it. I have had family members block me, etc. So this isn't the first time something overly dramatic has happened. I know half of it is my fault for sharing too much, or being too blunt. I do not think I deserve the personal attacks though. I have already blocked my cousin, so none of her friends will be seeing my statuses anymore.

 

I will probably be back, because there are a lot of people I am in contact with on facebook that I wouldn't be in contact with otherwise, and I would miss them. :001_smile:

 

Just don't read junk. Stick to the people you just want to see. I used to be just like this and get offended and take everything personally. Now I just realize I am mature and able to communicate like a responsible adult and how pathetic for people who cannot. You are going to continue to run in to stupidity for a LOOOOOONG time. You can practice ignoring it on the internets :lol:

[Caitilin]

Exactly. It is just an exaggeration.

 

 

 

Their feelings are not a judgment of your choice. Their feeling that they don't want to be "mom first" is not a judgment on the fact that you do. The fact that you are a "mom first" is not a judgment on their choice to work outside the home. That is the problem with these discussions, every person's feelings is somehow deemed to be a judgment of everyone else.

 

:iagree::iagree:

My sister and I have this dynamic going on in our relationship, making everything very superficial and strained. She thinks that I must be judging her choice to work outside the home since she judges mine to stay at home; though, frankly, she makes a poor SAHM and a good WOHM, so why on earth should I judge?

 

I also agree that while I am currently and for the foreseeable future a happy and contented full-time mom, I also am not a mom first. First, I'm Caitilin. My sense of the value of my self and my purpose is not tied up in my children. I'd consider myself to have a purpose in life just by existing, irrespective of what other "jobs" I might choose to undertake. I think it IS dangerous to lose sight of one's self through having become subsumed into one's role, because when the role is fulfilled, the foundation of one's existence can become shaky, and that is a scary place to be.

 

I guess I just feel that each single one of us is so wonderful IN JUST BEING OURSELVES, without regard to role, that the whole mom first thing is just...irrelevant. :001_smile:

[justamouse]

Exactly. It is just an exaggeration.

 

 

 

Their feelings are not a judgment of your choice. Their feeling that they don't want to be "mom first" is not a judgment on the fact that you do. The fact that you are a "mom first" is not a judgment on their choice to work outside the home. That is the problem with these discussions, every person's feelings is somehow deemed to be a judgment of everyone else.

 

But that's the thing, there's no working, not working, she just doesn't want to be seen as a mom first. There is no judgement against her working. It was against how she though considering yourself a mother first--no matter whether you stayed home or not--was demeaning.

 

It was a broad brush insult to those who work and consider themselves mothers first, ad those who stayed home and consider themselves mothers first. Just because you stay home doesn't mean you put your kids first, too.

[forty-two]

See, I take that for granted. Target groups are artificial. You're a woman, therefore you like language better than math, your budget includes a lot of shoes, bags, and makeup, and politicians can get your vote by promising more abortion rights and paid maternity leave. :glare: No, I'm a woman, therefore I'm a fully engaged member of society who happens to have female reproductive organs. Do we really need to say this? Maybe it doesn't do anything for me because I was single and childless until I was 40. There never seemed to be any question of my personhood then, so why would there be now?

 

I'm a mother just means I'm a woman who happens to have kids.

 

Well, I don't know how much is rooted in modern reality vs. reality of days gone by vs. an idea of reality, but a lot of feminism was/is fighting for that very thing you are taking for granted. Is that because they won? Is it because what they were fighting against never existed? Or is it not as taken-for-granted as you and I think it is (because I've never had my personhood devalued as a woman or a mother either) - that for many women, the battle is still being waged?

 

I don't know. But I have more respect for feminists than I used to.

Edited October 19, 2012 by forty-two

[forty-two]

:I also agree that while I am currently and for the foreseeable future a happy and contented full-time mom, I also am not a mom first. First, I'm Caitilin. My sense of the value of my self and my purpose is not tied up in my children. I'd consider myself to have a purpose in life just by existing, irrespective of what other "jobs" I might choose to undertake. I think it IS dangerous to lose sight of one's self through having become subsumed into one's role, because when the role is fulfilled, the foundation of one's existence can become shaky, and that is a scary place to be.

 

I guess I just feel that each single one of us is so wonderful IN JUST BEING OURSELVES, without regard to role, that the whole mom first thing is just...irrelevant. :001_smile:

:iagree:

[TranquilMind]

CheerioKid:

This occurred to me the other day, while I was listening to one of the debates. There are millions of employable people without jobs, at the same time there are millions of women putting their kids in daycare and working full time jobs.

 

Now, I know that NO candidate, or sitting president, for that matter, will have guts enough to even suggest it. It might not even occur to most people, but I wonder what might happen if the female secondary wage earners in America were to begin staying home with their children. This would make those jobs available for men who really need them, and MIGHT bring some balance back to this country. It would mean a reduction in income for the moms who chose to stay home, but what would each family, and the country as a whole, gain by having a new generation of children who were once again raised by their mother at home. I just wonder what would happen.

 

GASP!!!! HOW DARE YOU!

 

Funny, I said exactly the same thing to my husband while we were watching.

[SunnyDays]

Well, I'm pretty sure we're all actually *people* so that seems a silly argument. (Unless you really did come from another planet, as Wendy suspects... but that's a different conversation. :D)

 

As for "I would kill myself if..." I think there's a difference between sitting and having coffee with a friend, and saying "If I have to go through another day like that, I'm just gonna kill myself and get it over with) vs saying, IN FRONT OF CHILDREN, that you'd kill yourself if you had to stay home. The nurse could have said, "Wow, I love working and wouldn't be cut out for that" I don't think it would have been a big deal.

 

Regardless of your politics, I think it was asinine to say that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life. Anyone who has any number of kids (especially the five she has) would freely admit it's work. I'm sure that raising the children was not her only responsibility either, as a political wife.

 

I really hoped we'd have been long past the mommy wars by now. I was just saying to a friend yesterday what a much warmer place the world would be if women would stand up and support each other (in any number of circumstances) rather than judging. I love having girlfriends but sometimes I feel like an alien myself because it is so hard to find women you click with, who can support your choices while you support hers, even if they're not at all the same!!

[SunnyDays]

And Cheerio? I've wondered the same thing. Not that I think it should be mandatory, but I wonder how things would change if everyone made that choice, if only for a season.

[bolt.]

I think the author is objecting to the idea that, "I'm a Mom first." -- is meant by some to mean, "Before I am a person, before I have an individual identity. My identity depends on the other people I have borne, not on who I actually have been formed to be and become." In this sense, it isn't healthy to consider one's self a Mom as a primary marker of personal identity. We all know this. None of us raises daughters in 'republican motherhood' saying, "Someday you will mature and marry, then you will have kids and your life will finally matter because you were born to raise them. That's who you are darling, a mother-in-waiting. Nothing else about you matters."

 

Now, many of us "do" our mothering activites as a first priority in day to say life. To say this we would want to say, "Morhering comes first in my life." -- it's a statement about life's priorities and activities. That's healthy and often noble, but it's not a statement about personal identity. It's not a proclamation, "Hey world, I define myself by the fact that I am a female with children... Everything else about who I am is secondary to that."

[forty-two]

Well, I'm pretty sure we're all actually *people* so that seems a silly argument. (Unless you really did come from another planet, as Wendy suspects... but that's a different conversation. :D)

<snip>

I really hoped we'd have been long past the mommy wars by now. I was just saying to a friend yesterday what a much warmer place the world would be if women would stand up and support each other (in any number of circumstances) rather than judging. I love having girlfriends but sometimes I feel like an alien myself because it is so hard to find women you click with, who can support your choices while you support hers, even if they're not at all the same!!

 

I really don't think the obvious truth that we are all fellow human beings, and thus should treat each other accordingly, is really all so obvious. Because humans like to divide people into "our people" and "not our people" at the drop of a hat, and it's ok to treat the "other" people badly. I mean, that's what's driving the Mommy Wars - the apparent need to divide into us and them - and the "them" are being horrible to their children, so it's not just ok, but a moral duty to point out their failures.

 

I think we could do a bit *more* conscious emphasis on our shared humanity, not less. Constant Vigilance, you know ;) - the important things must be constantly attended too, because they will *not* take care of themselves. No truth is so self-evident that it doesn't need to be constantly brought front and center in order to not be forgotten.

[Joanne]

I would not argue with you on your FB space because I believe that a person's FB is *their* space. I would have ignored the post.

 

But this is the WTM forum.;)

 

I agree, almost wholeheartedly, with the linked article.

 

 

My conflict was about saying that I thought it was selfish for a woman to so brazenly and proudly refuse to make her young child a priority for the first few years of his/her life. We went around and around, when pressed I said that I felt it was ideal but not always realistic that a mother stay home for the first few years, and apparently that is an evil that no one should ever speak..

 

The first bold part would have upset me greatly. In fact, it does now. I WAS home with my 3 in the years you mention. I'm not sure my "mom first" and focus was helpful in the long run.

 

I also don't think that WOH = not making kids a priority. And I HATE the pass given to women who "have" to work but the disdain offered to women who choose to.

[LucyStoner]

I'm sorry you were treated harshly, but using the word selfish probably wasn't wise. I don't think it's selfish for other women to choose something different than I have. I've actually known a few women who were better mothers because they chose to work. They were much happier and I wouldn't want anyone to think they were being selfish.

 

I think it's all about respecting different choices. No one should care that right now I choose to call myself a mom first, but I also don't think anyone should be too bothered by someone wishing to not be known as mom first.

 

What she said. ^^^^^^

 

I think words matter and it is a fallacy to claim to respect or not judge something I deem selfish.

 

I have spent most of my mothering years as a FT WOHM. I now stay home and have really thrown myself into being at home. I even stopped nearly all pt consulting because the more I was home, the more I wanted to be at home. :tongue_smilie: I am much happier and I do think my kids are better off for it. That said, my experiences apply to exactly one person and one family- me and mine. When I worked, things were different but still good. I don't claim to be making the best choice for all, just what is in this season of life, given the particulars of my situation, the best choice for me personally.

 

While I agree that the author has a nearly uniquely American individualism view; I personally think that is ok. She is asking that American women get the same freedom and consideration as American men. What's wrong with that? Feminism is about choices. I don't really see what she is saying as being at odds with feminism and choices.

 

I share Joanne's agreement with the article. Even while at home, I think it is good and healthy for me to have an identity and life that is not wholly centered on mothering.

Edited October 19, 2012 by kijipt

[Farrar]

I've now had a bunch of conversations about this article. Here's my basic take...

 

The author of the article has some important points. Women who don't define themselves by motherhood are often treated poorly. I don't mean women who neglect or otherwise do wrong by their kids - I mean women who simply think of other work as the most fulfilling part of their lives. That's a valid choice. And the more women who come out publicly and do define themselves as a mother first underscores this. Some of the things people have said in this thread also underscore that for me.

 

However, the way she wrote the article and all the discussions about it have been just nasty and divisive, in my opinion. I didn't like the article. I didn't like the way she tried to make her point. And taking the opposite tact and borderline belittling people who *do* find motherhood the most fulfilling part of their lives absolutely will not fix anything. It's just mommy wars grenade lobbing, plain and simple.

 

Here's what I wish. I wish we would stop talking about whether or not being a mother changes you, or is fulfilling or not, or anything. I wish instead that we would start talking more about fatherhood and how that changes men, and how men find it fulfilling. I wish we would stop talking about women trying to "have it all" or about women taking maternity leave or whatever and start talking about men juggling kids and work and men taking paternity leave. Because that, to me, would change the conversation. It's parenthood that changes us and fulfills us and it's an issue that's beyond gender.

[bolt.]

I don't think that there's any such thing as an "expert" on parenting.

[Joanne]

The author has one daughter, born in 2010. I hardly consider her an expert on mothering.

 

Her article isn't about mothering. It's about power, perception, roles, culture.

[SpecialClassical]

She is 33 and has one child born in 2010. That is according to wiki. It appears she has a very privileged background. I wonder how that plays into her views?

[QueenCat]

Here's what I wish. I wish we would stop talking about whether or not being a mother changes you, or is fulfilling or not, or anything. I wish instead that we would start talking more about fatherhood and how that changes men, and how men find it fulfilling. I wish we would stop talking about women trying to "have it all" or about women taking maternity leave or whatever and start talking about men juggling kids and work and men taking paternity leave. Because that, to me, would change the conversation. It's parenthood that changes us and fulfills us and it's an issue that's beyond gender.

 

:iagree:100% Well said.

[SKL]

OK, here's my experience as a working woman in a traditional workaholic's career. I work with a diverse community of professionals across the country (most I've never met in person) and for the most part, I don't know who is a parent (mom or dad) and who isn't. I am at a point in my life where I am not afraid to say "I need to drop off this call at 5:30 so I can go pick up my kids." This can seem risky, i.e., some colleagues would fear to do this lest it appear they don't take their work as seriously as everyone else. Once you get in a one-on-one conversation, though, you find that most of us have kids and care deeply about them. It doesn't mean others see us as "moms before persons."

 

In short, the fear of a "moms first" stereotype is silly IMO IRL because:

 

(a) nobody knows I have kids until I tell them, and I usually have no reason to do so. Pretty sure that sets me up to be seen as a "person first."

 

(b) if they do come to find out I have kids, so do they and most female colleagues, and that has never changed the nature of our projects.

 

© sharing about parenthood makes us seem more human and multi-dimensional, not less.

 

I think there is a bit of the victim mentality at play here.

Edited October 19, 2012 by SKL

[LucyStoner]

 

Now, I know that NO candidate, or sitting president, for that matter, will have guts enough to even suggest it. It might not even occur to most people, but I wonder what might happen if the female secondary wage earners in America were to begin staying home with their children. This would make those jobs available for men who really need them, and MIGHT bring some balance back to this country. It would mean a reduction in income for the moms who chose to stay home, but what would each family, and the country as a whole, gain by having a new generation of children who were once again raised by their mother at home. I just wonder what would happen.

 

Before I get flamed, I'm not suggesting any sort of legislation requiring it by any means, I'm just saying it would be interesting to see what the effect would be.

 

 

 

I think it is a leap to make the argument that women are the secondary earners. For one, many women are the only earners or make more than their husbands. For two, lower earners can be the make or break piece of the equation. From a purely dollars perspective, we would be better off with my salary. But my husband gets the benefits. And we need those medical benefits because we have a special needs child. So we decided to drop my income rather than his when it became clear we needed 1 parent at home for now. Also, the vast increased demand on public aid that most median income families would be if they dropped their second income can not be underestimated, yet there would be fewer taxpayers to pay for those services.

 

Like a 1 child policy, when imagining a 1 job policy it is important to consider the unintended consequences. Also, one could look at the number of workers presently doing the work of 2 or 3 in terms of number of hours and argue for a cap on hours worked...an idea to increase employment which also has some pretty negative possible outcomes.

Edited October 19, 2012 by kijipt

[SKL]

Why do we assume that the women in the workforce have less right to be there than the men who are unemployed? Maybe it's the unemployed men who need to get used to the idea of being domestic engineers.

 

My brother had that brilliant idea decades ago (even before he voted for Ross Perot). Keep women out of the workforce so men could earn more. What about hiring the best person for the job?

 

Not to mention the fact that in the long term, that kind of mentality would lead to lower-educated women and thus disempowerment. Why waste money educating a girl? Why should an uneducated woman need to vote? Why should someone without political power be treated with dignity in the home?

[SpecialClassical]

Her article isn't about mothering. It's about power, perception, roles, culture.

 

 

Of course it is about mothering. We may want to separate our own mothering experience from the reality of the issues of power, perception, roles, and culture, but they are intertwined and that is why people are so passionate about the article. She is free to declare herself a mother first only when those issues are balanced properly (defined by whom?) if she wants to do that. That doesn't change the fact that her experiences will either confirm her beliefs or shake them. I believe her experience as a mother will influence her in some way over the next 20 years.

[LucyStoner]

Why do we assume that the women in the workforce have less right to be there than the men who are unemployed? Maybe it's the unemployed men who need to get used to the idea of being domestic engineers.

 

My brother had that brilliant idea decades ago (even before he voted for Ross Perot). Keep women out of the workforce so men could earn more. What about hiring the best person for the job?

 

Not to mention the fact that in the long term, that kind of mentality would lead to lower-educated women and thus disempowerment. Why waste money educating a girl? Why should an uneducated woman need to vote? Why should someone without political power be treated with dignity in the home?

 

I totally agree with this.

[ktgrok]

I absolutely believe that I'm a mother first. No question about it. There is no other role in my life that could possibly top that one.

 

I would hope that every woman who is a mother would declare herself a "mother first" (at least while her children are underage). Of course, I also believe that men who are fathers should consider themselves "fathers first" as well. I'm fortunate that my husband does.

 

:iagree:

[Joanne]

You know, not identifying as "mom first" does not equal not putting family or kids first.

 

One can identify more broadly and still have children as a priority, even *the* priority.