What do you think about this article?

[forty-two]

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.

:iagree: Yes, this.

[justamouse]

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.

 

But, identifying yourself as a mother first doesn't = martyrdom on the altar of children.

 

I don't think any of the women identifying as mother first on this thread wouldn't tell a bedraggled, overtired mother that she needs some time to herself, she needs a hobby, she needs some time away. You see that advice here all the time.

 

It's very gray.

[Mrs Mungo]

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.

 

So, you are *still* not arguing that you hear these from adults on a daily basis, correct?

 

Usually the "I would kill myself if..." is a female thing

 

:confused: since when? Disagree that it is a female thing. Fallacy one.

 

maybe that's why you think it's the norm and okay,

 

*I* am arguing that one is within the cultural standard of fine and the other isn't. Strawman argument on your part. Fallacy two.

 

but having close family and friends that have committed suicide, no, suicide jokes in any form are not funny.

 

So, saying "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.

 

You don't know me or how I have been touched by suicide. Ad hominem. Fallacy three.

 

They perpetuate the idea that there are reasons worth killing yourself.

 

I am going to kill him if he leaves the toilet seat up again, grrr," condones and excuses murder of one's spouse?

 

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.

 

Again, so hearing a random adult say, "oh, I could just kill him," means that children will forever think murder is okay. Really? Is that the argument you want to make?

 

 

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.

 

She feels it is demeaning. So what?

 

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.

 

I disagree that her feelings are intended to insult anyone. Did she use provocative language? Sure, that is what writers do to get you to talk about them. That is what they get paid to do.

 

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.

 

And it is JUST as asinine to imply that she is the perfect finance adviser because this extremely wealthy woman who has never worked outside the home knows all about the struggle of women and how that plays into ANY economic picture, which was the real gripe versus the Fox talking point.

 

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."

 

Agreed. And this is where having read historical feminist authors helps one understand where this perspective comes from. Because we DO talk a lot for granted.

 

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?

 

Because that makes her view less valid?

 

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.

 

Right.

[forty-two]

But, identifying yourself as a mother first doesn't = martyrdom on the altar of children.

 

I don't think any of the women identifying as mother first on this thread wouldn't tell a bedraggled, overtired mother that she needs some time to herself, she needs a hobby, she needs some time away. You see that advice here all the time.

 

It's very gray.

 

:iagree: Agree with this, too :tongue_smilie:.

 

But it's helpful to realize that it *does* read that way to others, and there are logical reasons why they hear it that way. So that if generic you wants to communicate more clearly, you might want to make what you mean by "mother first" explicit, instead of assuming it is obvious/everyone has the same definition/impression of the phrase - because it is clear there's several different views of what it means in this thread alone ;).

[Joanne]

But, identifying yourself as a mother first doesn't = martyrdom on the altar of children.

 

I don't think any of the women identifying as mother first on this thread wouldn't tell a bedraggled, overtired mother that she needs some time to herself, she needs a hobby, she needs some time away. You see that advice here all the time.

 

It's very gray.

 

I see "I am such a great mom that I never need time away, never use sitters, won't get a PT gig and be away from them...." all the time here, too.

 

And many forms of assumption and slam against anything less then exclusive mother focus.

[nmoira]

I think it's depressing that when discussing an article written by a woman, some feel the need to research her personal life. How is this relevant when evaluating her argument or position? That some felt the need to know whether she was a mother (or assumed she couldn't be, and then further assume that she is a poor or uncaring parent), goes a fair way to proving her point about motherhood and identity.

[TranquilMind]

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

 

Oh, that's hilarious.

 

Just what I thought.

 

I was the perfect mother too, when my sole child was under two.

[TranquilMind]

IThat some felt the need to know whether she was a mother (or assumed she couldn't be, and then further assume that she is a poor or uncaring parent), goes a fair way to proving her point about motherhood and identity.

 

 

No. It would be irrelevant if she were making any other kind of argument, sbut she is specifically speaking of the role of a mother, and she hasn't been one long enough to have a leg to stand on.

 

Now, if she were 63, and had raised kids and had four grandkids, and was giving her opinion on the identity of women, her viewpoint would have more validity. And believe me, if he were a man, he'd better have some parenting experience under his belt before venturing into this area.

[forty-two]

I think it's depressing that when discussing an article written by a woman, some feel the need to research her personal life. How is this relevant when evaluating her argument or position? That some felt the need to know whether she was a mother (or assumed she couldn't be, and then further assume that she is a poor or uncaring parent), goes a fair way to proving her point about motherhood and identity.

 

Yeah, it does, doesn't it :think. That people couldn't just disagree with her ideas on their own merits, but quickly jumped to disparaging them based on her youth and new motherhood - go ad hominem fun :tongue_smilie:. Although, to be fair, people go all ad hominem on men, too.

[LucyStoner]

Oh, that's hilarious.

 

Just what I thought.

 

I was the perfect mother too, when my sole child was under two.

 

A 33 year old woman and mother is entitled to write about her own identity and experiences, regardless of her youth, privelege, number of children or the ages of those children. And regardless of if anyone shares her opinion. These words are her own and resonate with many.

Edited October 19, 2012 by kijipt

[forty-two]

No. It would be irrelevant if she were making any other kind of argument, sbut she is specifically speaking of the role of a mother, and she hasn't been one long enough to have a leg to stand on.

 

Now, if she were 63, and had raised kids and had four grandkids, and was giving her opinion on the identity of women, her viewpoint would have more validity.

 

Her experience may affect the odds of her being right, but her experience or lack thereof isn't proof one way or another that this particular argument of hers is right or wrong. "Likely to be wrong" is not proof of wrongness, although it may be a pragmatic reason to not spend much time bothering to consider her argument.

[Mrs Mungo]

No. It would be irrelevant if she were making any other kind of argument, sbut she is specifically speaking of the role of a mother, and she hasn't been one long enough to have a leg to stand on.

 

How SHE feels about being told that she should be a mother first, before anything else is equally valid as my feelings. She is a woman and a mother and has a right to have her feelings validated, especially if you expect others to do the same for you. By your logic, those of us who have never been working mothers have no right to an opinion on the matter.

 

Yeah, it does, doesn't it :think. That people couldn't just disagree with her ideas on their own merits, but quickly jumped to disparaging them based on her youth and new motherhood - go ad hominem fun :tongue_smilie:. Although, to be fair, people go all ad hominem on men, too.

 

Exactly.

 

And to the general thread, if one cannot have a discussion without tears and a meltdown and a dramatic flounce, then you should probably stay completely away from any and all controversial topics on the Internet or in real life.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[TranquilMind]

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.

 

Exactly.

[nmoira]

No. It would be irrelevant if she were making any other kind of argument, sbut she is specifically speaking of the role of a mother, and she hasn't been one long enough to have a leg to stand on.

 

Now, if she were 63, and had raised kids and had four grandkids, and was giving her opinion on the identity of women, her viewpoint would have more validity.

 

Because she doesn't know any other mothers? Sorry, that just wash. Her argument doesn't strand or fall on her status as a mother, but rather on its own merits.

[TranquilMind]

A 33 year old woman and mother is entitled to write about her own identity and experiences, regardless of her youth, privelege, number of children or the ages of those children. And regardless of if anyone shares her opinion. These words are her own and resonate with many.

 

Sure she is. And people are equally free to disagree with her and challenge her assumptions.

[oceanseve]

So, you are *still* not arguing that you hear these from adults on a daily basis, correct?

 

:confused: since when? Disagree that it is a female thing. Fallacy one.

 

*I* am arguing that one is within the cultural standard of fine and the other isn't. Strawman argument on your part. Fallacy two.

 

You don't know me or how I have been touched by suicide. Ad hominem. Fallacy three.

 

I am going to kill him if he leaves the toilet seat up again, grrr," condones and excuses murder of one's spouse?

 

Again, so hearing a random adult say, "oh, I could just kill him," means that children will forever think murder is okay. Really? Is that the argument you want to make?

 

 

You're right I don't know you, but judging from the hauty and hateful tone of your posts I have read, I think I can deduce enough about you to know whatever I say you will continue to be hauty and hateful :)

 

These days I hang with women and gay men needless to say not the rape joke type. My husband on the other hand hears plenty of distasteful jokes, including those about rape, in the shops he has to frequent for work. So, yes, adults make plenty of rape jokes, dear. If you had indeed been touched by suicide then I find it hard to believe you would find suicide funny so keep playing the I've been through it all card. Children are killing themselves younger and younger. They are taught from an incredibly young age that murder is wrong and it is reiterated constantly to not harm others. Most children are not taught about their self worth and to not harm themselves. Instead they are taught that they are an inconvenience by their parents, particularly their mothers, like the one that wrote this article. Until people realize that man or woman, the most important thing in their lives is their children things are only going to get worse. Go ahead and ***** about my statements, you won't get me riled up, but you are welcome to try :D

[TranquilMind]

Her argument doesn't strand or fall on her status as a mother, but rather on its own merits.

 

You are right. It falls on its own merits. The flaws are only illuminated by her brief exposure to motherhood.

[Mrs Mungo]

Sure she is. And people are equally free to disagree with her and challenge her assumptions.

 

They are not challenging anything from my viewpoint. They are just whining that she dares to hold such an opinion at all.

[Mrs Mungo]

You're right I don't know you, but judging from the hauty and hateful tone of your posts I have read, I think I can deduce enough about you to know whatever I say you will continue to be hauty and hateful :)

 

These days I hang with women and gay men needless to say not the rape joke type. My husband on the other hand hears plenty of distasteful jokes, including those about rape, in the shops he has to frequent for work. So, yes, adults make plenty of rape jokes, dear. If you had indeed been touched by suicide then I find it hard to believe you would find suicide funny so keep playing the I've been through it all card. Children are killing themselves younger and younger. They are taught from an incredibly young age that murder is wrong and it is reiterated constantly to not harm others. Most children are not taught about their self worth and to not harm themselves. Instead they are taught that they are an inconvenience by their parents, particularly their mothers, like the one that wrote this article. Until people realize that man or woman, the most important thing in their lives is their children things are only going to get worse. Go ahead and ***** about my statements, you won't get me riled up, but you are welcome to try :D

 

Well, bless your heart.

 

It isn't hateful to point out flaws in your argument. It is how one debates, not through name calling.

 

I spent my last week on a panel fighting for soldiers wounded in battle. Many of those battle scars are unseen. You don't think I know anything about suicide? My dh took a week of leave so that I could do so and he could be with the kids. You don't think I know children are to be valued? It just shows what happens when you assume.

 

There is no need for ad hominem attacks against me, IF your argument has merit.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Mrs Mungo
iPad submitting before ready

[Bluegoat]

I think she totally took a leap with the points that she said inspire her article - like a stay at home mom of five who thinks that was a "real" job. I don't know how someone can see someone talking about that and say it means losing one's identity or a degradation, and that is the assumption or connection she made. That is only true if you think raising children is somehow a degrading and less fulfilling vocation than other kinds of work. (And people can and regularly do make the mistake of totally identifying themselves with other sorts of work as well.)

 

Really, raising five children is a full-time job, whether it is your own kids or those belonging to someone else. Somehow I can't see the author denigrating the people, mostly women, who get paid to work in daycare and as nannies - that would not be politically correct. But that seems to be the logical implication, and frankly that seems to be about the value our society gives to raising children as a career. Childcare workers are underpaid jobs that are given little respect, they are certainly not seen as a "profession" in North America. Childcare is a high turn-over industry.

 

This to me is the idea that does not serve our kids well - that raising children is work for the uneducated and underpaid. There are reasons there are a lot of immigrants doing nanny work and a big one is that we do not see it as valued, worthy of respect, or "real". We don't want to take those jobs.

 

But how is it that raising children is less worthwhile than being an engineer? Do we really see it as less important or contributing less to society?Why is it ok to define ourselves by professional careers but not by being a mother? To me this attitude seems to reek of a sort of misogyny all of its own. Work traditionally identified with women - nursing, teaching young children, library work, and especially that biologically defined position of motherhood - have less value than work traditionally associated with men.

 

I think we are all defined relationally to a large degree, though not totally, and if we think we can escape that we are fooling ourselves. The projects and causes and work that we give our bodies and minds and money to; the relations we have with subordinates, friends, customers, neighbours and those in authority; the way we discharge our duties to God, our communities, our families, and those who we do not know - these things all define us and make us into a particular sort of person.

 

I think the article, and the very particular strain of feminism it represents - is shallow and silly. I found it impossible to read almost any of the statements she made without seeing dozens of immediate questions they raised or assumptions that were by no means obviously true.

 

FWIW, I think children have probably been hard done by by both the social trends that have taken most mothers and fathers out of the home and has families all in their own separate spheres for the majority of the day. And I think the fragmentation of our communities has made it a lot worse. Not only kids but adults as well are missing out on a lot of the relationships they need to prosper.

[Caitilin]

Well, bless your heart.

 

Indeed. :iagree:

[Caitilin]

Double post.

[forty-two]

Sure she is. And people are equally free to disagree with her and challenge her assumptions.

 

Yes, totally challenge her assumptions. But asserting that her assumptions are wrong because she has had too little experience is not challenging her assumptions, but dismissing them out of hand - and for reasons that have nothing to do with the assumptions themselves, but rather the person making the assumptions.

 

A young person doesn't know as much of the world as do older folks, and so more of their assumptions are, on average, going to be wrong. That doesn't make any given assumption wrong, though. Even children have *some* correct assumptions.

[oceanseve]

I think she totally took a leap with the points that she said inspire her article - like a stay at home mom of five who thinks that was a "real" job. I don't know how someone can see someone talking about that and say it means losing one's identity or a degradation, and that is the assumption or connection she made. That is only true if you think raising children is somehow a degrading and less fulfilling vocation than other kinds of work. (And people can and regularly do make the mistake of totally identifying themselves with other sorts of work as well.)

 

Really, raising five children is a full-time job, whether it is your own kids or those belonging to someone else. Somehow I can't see the author denigrating the people, mostly women, who get paid to work in daycare and as nannies - that would not be politically correct. But that seems to be the logical implication, and frankly that seems to be about the value our society gives to raising children as a career. Childcare workers are underpaid jobs that are given little respect, they are certainly not seen as a "profession" in North America. Childcare is a high turn-over industry.

 

This to me is the idea that does not serve our kids well - that raising children is work for the uneducated and underpaid. There are reasons there are a lot of immigrants doing nanny work and a big one is that we do not see it as valued, worthy of respect, or "real". We don't want to take those jobs.

 

But how is it that raising children is less worthwhile than being an engineer? Do we really see it as less important or contributing less to society?Why is it ok to define ourselves by professional careers but not by being a mother? To me this attitude seems to reek of a sort of misogyny all of its own. Work traditionally identified with women - nursing, teaching young children, library work, and especially that biologically defined position of motherhood - have less value than work traditionally associated with men.

 

I think we are all defined relationally to a large degree, though not totally, and if we think we can escape that we are fooling ourselves. The projects and causes and work that we give our bodies and minds and money to; the relations we have with subordinates, friends, customers, neighbours and those in authority; the way we discharge our duties to God, our communities, our families, and those who we do not know - these things all define us and make us into a particular sort of person.

 

I think the article, and the very particular strain of feminism it represents - is shallow and silly. I found it impossible to read almost any of the statements she made without seeing dozens of immediate questions they raised or assumptions that were by no means obviously true.

 

FWIW, I think children have probably been hard done by by both the social trends that have taken most mothers and fathers out of the home and has families all in their own separate spheres for the majority of the day. And I think the fragmentation of our communities has made it a lot worse. Not only kids but adults as well are missing out on a lot of the relationships they need to prosper.

 

:iagree: Wish I could be so poetic :) Nicely said!!

[JFJ in IL]

That article really rubs me the wrong way!

This is what I would have posted but didn't because I don't want to register...

 

I was a Stay at Home Mom for 6 years...now I am a Home Educating Mother to my two wonderful children.

I am very offended by this article and the authors opinion of me. I did not and do not "embrace motherhood as my primary and most important identity" in order to obtain "power"

I put my family first because I want to and we can afford it. I do believe that it is a luxury that many cannot afford. I also know that not every woman wants to follow the same path as me and that is fine, too!

There is so much more I could say but it isn't worth my time.

 

This woman claims to be a feminist :glare:

[bolt.]

she is specifically speaking of the role of a mother, and she hasn't been one long enough to have a leg to stand on.

I'm confused by this idea. Honestly, people study societies, power structures, personal identity, psycology and politics all the time. It's a feild of study not a personal anicdote. People have various levels of skill in their fields, but their level of skill is *rarely* thought to be predicated on whether or not they have *been* that which they study.

 

What you have said is like saying, "Mr. Jones published an article on the effects of oil spills on dolphins, but since he is neither a dophin nor an oil tanker, I don't think he has a leg to stand on." -- Either Mr. Jones is pubishing good information about dophins and oil, or he's not. That's a fair avenue of assessment... is he smart enough to do his job well or not? Does he make good points? Is his research sound?

 

Similarly, the author of this article may or may not have presented a compelling idea based on sound research and information -- but *none* of that is based on how long she has been a mother (or whether she is one at all, or whether she is a 'good' one). It is an article about the role and characterization of women and mothers during the recent history and current events of America. It's not a topic that requires a female author with live offspring to write intelligently about. The fact that she happens to be a mother of a small child is not relevant unless something in her article claims to be authorotative based on her personal experiences.

[SpecialClassical]

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.

 

I agree with you there. I disagree that mothering is the highest calling. As a Christian I feel whatever God created me to be is my highest calling on earth. So if He gave me the intellect and opportunity to be a brain surgeon or the talent to create beautiful artwork, I better be fulfilling those roles. (And I believe that is supported in scripture .) However, some women feel they were born to be moms and they work hard at that being their number one role. That is fine with me. Also, I feel that if one chooses to become a parent, your children should be a high priority no matter your vocation. In our culture the village isn't really reliable in raising our children.

 

I think the distaste of her sentiments comes in because of the selfish tone. By definition focusing on oneself above others is selfish. It's all about her and how people see her. She believes power is the ultimate goal and states that it is understandable that some women say they are mothers first because you " take it (power)where you can". Many of us believe that serving others is more important than serving ourselves and I do not think my current priority of mothering very needy children affords me much power. That certainly isn't why I am doing it. She sounds elitist and condescending when she assumes mothers choose to be mom first because they are duped into it and haven't thoughtfully thought the decision through. Even if a person's main argument for their use of time and talents is influenced heavily by their religious beliefs, that is every bit as valid as her own reasons.

 

I do understand that she is referring to power in the sense that men and women should be treated equally and have their opinions be equally valued. However, policy and power and perception do not drive everyone's personal decisions and that is reality.

 

ETA: Given this is the WTM board, did anyone else notice her use of different instead of differently?

[Marylou]

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.

 

There is nothing wrong with your logic.

[bettyandbob]

 

 

Cheeriokid wrote :

 

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 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.

You've got to be kidding. The women I know who may be in the category of "choosing" to work are highly skilled. You are not going to put the majority of unemployed people back to work by telling them that they can't work since they are women who chose to have a baby. Some of these women may be more highly skilled than their dh's.

 

How do you determine "choosing" to work? If you can just make it (pay the mortgage and buy food) on one salary you aren't permitted to work. What if the second income means you can save for college? Some parents see it as a responsibility of the parents to help their dc with college, others do not. Are you going to regulate college savings as "choosing"?

 

 

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.

 

Joanne, voice of reason.

[LucyStoner]

Sure she is. And people are equally free to disagree with her and challenge her assumptions.

 

Challenge does not mean dismiss due to age and experience without actually addressing the actual subtance of her article.

 

I mean, someone will always have more experience so we should all refrain from opinions?

[LucyStoner]

The truth is our cult of motherhood culture claims to value mothering and talks a big game on family values but in reality, we do not value domestic work and motherhood. We should and we don't. A careful, rather than reactionary, reading of that article will see that is part to what she is getting at.

[Joanne]

Yes, totally challenge her assumptions. But asserting that her assumptions are wrong because she has had too little experience is not challenging her assumptions, but dismissing them out of hand - and for reasons that have nothing to do with the assumptions themselves, but rather the person making the assumptions. A young person doesn't know as much of the world as do older folks, and so more of their assumptions are, on average, going to be wrong. That doesn't make any given assumption wrong, though. Even children have *some* correct assumptions.

 

:iagree: Yes. Nearly an ad hominem. ;)

[Joanne]

I read the article again. She does not put down being a mother, the importance of being a mother or mothers who do not work outside the home.

 

I suspect some who have a visceral reaction to her words aren't reading her actual words.

 

Her article is about how the sexes *identify*; not about the relative importance of our roles.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

When we tout ourselves mothers first, women give those who would enshrine their dehumanization more firepower and assure that their domestic work will only ever be paid in thanks, not in policy or power.

 

I take this to mean that the author feels like every woman who declares herself a mother first is giving power to males attempting to reduce her equality with them.

 

Do many women still believe that there is a male conspiracy to "keep women down" in America?

[TranquilMind]

Challenge does not mean dismiss due to age and experience without actually addressing the actual subtance of her article.

 

I mean, someone will always have more experience so we should all refrain from opinions?

 

 

Ok:

 

From Article:

Last week, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said it was better for children to have a parent at home. “To have one parent to stay closely connected and at home during those early years of education can be very very important,†he said. It’s not hard to imagine which parent he’s talking about.

 

Really? Why is that? Because women give birth to the babies and breastfeed them? Yes, it kind of makes sense for it to be Mom, early on, for quite practical reasons, does it not?

 

 

To be a truly committed parent, women are expected to be mothers above all else—we’re “moms first.â€

 

And so are men. They are Dads first, they will tell you. All else pales in comparison.

 

Michelle Obama says that despite all her accomplishments, her “most important title is still ‘mom-in-chief’.†Ann Romney told the crowd at the Republican National Convention that it’s mothers “who really hold this country together.â€

 

And they are no slouches, who have no other skills.

 

If we want equality, women with children would be better served calling themselves people first, moms second.

 

Really? Are we not all "people"? This statement is ridiculous.

 

 

Do we really want to go back to a time where women’s most important political contributions are caring for the children who will go on to make the real decisions, have the real power?

 

False dichotomy. We are not limited to either-or. We CAN do it all and have it all. We just cannot do it all and have it all at the same time. Something is going to give. We have ample evidence what has given, based on statistics of all the problems in society.

 

 

If raising children is “reward enough,†there’s no need for paid parental leave or subsidized child care.

 

Huge leap here. No one is saying to dismantle paid parental leave -which both Mothers AND Fathers take. No one is saying to dismantle child care where needed.

 

 

Even the attempted rollbacks of women’s reproductive rights—from debates over contraception to legislation that seeks to grant fetuses “personhoodâ€â€”are linked to the cult of motherhood.

 

Ahh, now here we get to her political ax. The "cult of motherhood". God forbid we understand that fetuses are people - something we already understand in criminal law, oddly enough.

 

 

In an instructional publication for their supporters, the anti-abortion group National Right to Life writes that “women have to stop apologizing for the fact that they bear children.†If you believe that women’s natural and most important role is motherhood then it’s easy to justify limiting access to birth control and abortion—you’re just making sure women fulfill their true purpose. The strategic targeting of marginalized women for sterilization or long term birth control is based on dehumanization and the idea of a particular kind of perfect motherhood. And seeing women as mothers before people is what paves the way for legislation like last year’s ironically named Protect Life Act, which would have allowed hospitals to deny women abortions even if they needed one to save their life. Mothers first, remember?

Standard pro-abortion blah blah. Yes, I will use pro-abortion, since she uses "anti-abortion". As if it is about "abortion", as a procedure, instead of the snuffing out of a baby's life. Had she used "pro-life", I'd use "pro-choice", misnomer that it is.

 

It’s understandable that some women would embrace motherhood as their primary and most important identity. When you have little power, you take it where you can. Trumpeting the supremacy of motherhood and domesticity is instant access to cultural approval. But the veneer of importance is not power.

 

Yes, poor, pitiful Moms by the tens of thousands have given up their lack of power as engineers, attorneys, legislators -whoops, must insert Mitch Daniels, a MAN, who gave up running for the POTUS because of spending time with family - in order to be with babies. Poor, duped individuals.

 

She is SO 1970s standard rhetoric, it is making me laugh. Which is a good thing today, actually.

 

 

How can any American mother truly believe that her work is valued when every policy, every mocking magazine cover, every pat-on-the-head Mother’s Day sentiment tells them different?

The truth is right in front of us. When Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan was at the Democratic National Convention, reporters asked about her possible run against Governor Pat Quinn. Specifically, they wanted to know whether she could be a good governor while raising her two young daughters. “Wow, does anybody ever ask that question?†she responded. Well, not to men.

 

 

Yet, Mitch Daniels openly declared did not run for Republican candidate for President because he wanted to spend time with his family. Go figure.

 

Fathers are never expected to subsume their identity into parenthood the way that mothers are. If President Obama were to tell us that he is ’father-in-chief’ first, America would balk. How could a man be an effective president if he put the needs of his children above the needs of his country?

 

I call BS on that one. If something happens to one of Obama's daughters, conference or high level meeting be ****ed. Count on it. (Though, of course, I pray nothing happens to them ever).

 

 

Yes, we are mothers and sisters and daughters and wives. We’re also much more. And declaring our individual importance as people and citizens does not diminish the depth of love we have for our children or the central role parenthood plays in our lives.

 

Well, I don't know about her, but my individual importance as a person has never been at issue.

 

When we tout ourselves mothers first, women give those who would enshrine their dehumanization more firepower and assure that their domestic work will only ever be paid in thanks, not in policy or power. Until that changes, I’m a mother second.

 

So she's bought the rhetoric that you can't be both a powerful woman who gets things done and a mother, or that these are inconsistent.

 

Her premise is just wrong.

[Joanne]

I take this to mean that the author feels like every woman who declares herself a mother first is giving power to males attempting to reduce her equality with them.

 

Do many women still believe that there is a male conspiracy to "keep women down" in America?

 

Actually, domestic work IS some of the lowest paid: childcare, housekeeping, etc.

[Mrs Mungo]

Abortion is the number one reason that politics is banned on this board. Mentioning it is practically guaranteed to get your post deleted and the thread shut down.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

I think she totally took a leap with the points that she said inspire her article - like a stay at home mom of five who thinks that was a "real" job. I don't know how someone can see someone talking about that and say it means losing one's identity or a degradation, and that is the assumption or connection she made. That is only true if you think raising children is somehow a degrading and less fulfilling vocation than other kinds of work. (And people can and regularly do make the mistake of totally identifying themselves with other sorts of work as well.)

 

Really, raising five children is a full-time job, whether it is your own kids or those belonging to someone else. Somehow I can't see the author denigrating the people, mostly women, who get paid to work in daycare and as nannies - that would not be politically correct. But that seems to be the logical implication, and frankly that seems to be about the value our society gives to raising children as a career. Childcare workers are underpaid jobs that are given little respect, they are certainly not seen as a "profession" in North America. Childcare is a high turn-over industry.

 

This to me is the idea that does not serve our kids well - that raising children is work for the uneducated and underpaid. There are reasons there are a lot of immigrants doing nanny work and a big one is that we do not see it as valued, worthy of respect, or "real". We don't want to take those jobs.

 

But how is it that raising children is less worthwhile than being an engineer? Do we really see it as less important or contributing less to society?Why is it ok to define ourselves by professional careers but not by being a mother? To me this attitude seems to reek of a sort of misogyny all of its own. Work traditionally identified with women - nursing, teaching young children, library work, and especially that biologically defined position of motherhood - have less value than work traditionally associated with men.

 

I think we are all defined relationally to a large degree, though not totally, and if we think we can escape that we are fooling ourselves. The projects and causes and work that we give our bodies and minds and money to; the relations we have with subordinates, friends, customers, neighbours and those in authority; the way we discharge our duties to God, our communities, our families, and those who we do not know - these things all define us and make us into a particular sort of person.

 

I think the article, and the very particular strain of feminism it represents - is shallow and silly. I found it impossible to read almost any of the statements she made without seeing dozens of immediate questions they raised or assumptions that were by no means obviously true.

 

FWIW, I think children have probably been hard done by by both the social trends that have taken most mothers and fathers out of the home and has families all in their own separate spheres for the majority of the day. And I think the fragmentation of our communities has made it a lot worse. Not only kids but adults as well are missing out on a lot of the relationships they need to prosper.

 

:iagree: :hurray::hurray::hurray:

 

Actually, domestic work IS some of the lowest paid: childcare, housekeeping, etc.

 

Perhaps I was not clear. By "keep women down" I meant the idea/attitude that women are less/lower than/not at intelligent/etc. as men. I was asking if many women believe that men in "power"/government/authority/etc. are actively trying to perpetuate that attitude.

[TranquilMind]

Actually, domestic work IS some of the lowest paid: childcare, housekeeping, etc.

 

Yes, it is. So don't do it.

 

That does not equate to motherhood as a primary identity being unimportant. It is a job you really can't farm out anyway.

Edited October 19, 2012 by TranquilMind

[bolt.]

When we tout ourselves mothers first, women give those who would enshrine their dehumanization more firepower and assure that their domestic work will only ever be paid in thanks, not in policy or power.

I take this to mean that the author feels like every woman who declares herself a mother first is giving power to males attempting to reduce her equality with them.

Really? I take it to mean that the author asserts that domestic work is valuable and should be 'paid' in things like policy and power -- and that women who say, "It's who I am! I do domestic work because I am domestic by identity." (a) Perpetuate the current status that they recieve only thanks for doing so. The author considers that course of action unwise because she would like to see more 'compensation' for such valuable work. and (b) Perpetuate the myths that women by their nature *belong* in domestic roles, that such roles suit them and ought to fully satisfy them, due to their gender identity... that a woman who is not suited-to or fully satisfied by a domestic role is not womanly... and further that men express a wider range of capacities and ambitions therefore more fully express what it is to be human.

 

Do many women still believe that there is a male conspiracy to "keep women down" in America?

The briefest study of sociology and economics reveals that the *fact* that some people are occupied with raising children and supporting the ability of workers to work well (without compensation, by forgoing the role of worker) is *foundational* to most western economies. It's not 'keeping women down' to know that to be the case, but, yes, many people are fully invested in keeping a country's economy stable. It takes a certian amount of human-energy-hours to keep a society going. If the society has to 'pay' for all those hours, including childcare and domestic services, it's going to take more money. If some people do it for free, it lowers the fiscal cost overall.

[I.Dup.]

No. It would be irrelevant if she were making any other kind of argument, sbut she is specifically speaking of the role of a mother, and she hasn't been one long enough to have a leg to stand on.

 

Now, if she were 63, and had raised kids and had four grandkids, and was giving her opinion on the identity of women, her viewpoint would have more validity. And believe me, if he were a man, he'd better have some parenting experience under his belt before venturing into this area.

 

I agree.

 

If this was a surgeon writing an article about the career of a surgeon and how a surgeon should best identify himself as a surgeon in the scope of his life and entire career, would it be wrong to check his credentials? What if he had been a surgeon for less than 2 years? Very few people would take him seriously.

 

And to the general thread, if one cannot have a discussion without tears and a meltdown and a dramatic flounce, then you should probably stay completely away from any and all controversial topics on the Internet or in real life.

 

I assume you are referring to me here :confused: I am plenty able to have a "discussion" and do it all the time, with enjoyment. What is hard for me to swallow is when someone viciously and personally attacks me and my family-- last I knew that was not considered a "discussion." If you have a problem with me, as you seem to, I wish you would confront me privately. I have tried talking with you privately and you still seem to clearly have an issue with me of some sort.

[BigMamaBird]

The attitude this woman is displaying just ticks me off to no end and is exactly the reason I refuse to identify with the modern feminist movement. "You have the right to make any choices you want! Except that choice you made, that's the wrong choice and you will be publicly denigrated because of it!" :glare:

[TranquilMind]

blessedwinter:

If this was a surgeon writing an article about the career of a surgeon and how a surgeon should best identify himself as a surgeon in the scope of his life and entire career, would it be wrong to check his credentials? What if he had been a surgeon for less than 2 years? Very few people would take him seriously.

 

Exactly.

[I.Dup.]

The attitude this woman is displaying just ticks me off to no end and is exactly the reason I refuse to identify with the modern feminist movement. "You have the right to make any choices you want! Except that choice you made, that's the wrong choice and you will be publicly denigrated because of it!" :glare:

 

Yep. It affects my political leanings as well.

[pdalley]

The attitude this woman is displaying just ticks me off to no end and is exactly the reason I refuse to identify with the modern feminist movement. "You have the right to make any choices you want! Except that choice you made, that's the wrong choice and you will be publicly denigrated because of it!" :glare:

 

:iagree:

 

If that's how she feels for herself - personally - fine. I could care less. But don't make it seems as if I'm betraying some 'cause' by feeling the way I do. I respect her right to identify as she wishes. All I ask is the same towards my choice.

[justamouse]

FWIW, I think children have probably been hard done by by both the social trends that have taken most mothers and fathers out of the home and has families all in their own separate spheres for the majority of the day. And I think the fragmentation of our communities has made it a lot worse. Not only kids but adults as well are missing out on a lot of the relationships they need to prosper.

 

Apart from the fact that I have a total girl crush on you :D...

 

What does the bolded mean (is that Canadian speak?)?

[justamouse]

If this was a surgeon writing an article about the career of a surgeon and how a surgeon should best identify himself as a surgeon in the scope of his life and entire career, would it be wrong to check his credentials? What if he had been a surgeon for less than 2 years? Very few people would take him seriously.

 

 

We have lost the mother culture and the mothering it took to raise good mothers. The training that goes into good mothering is about 25 years of being raised by a good mother, and those who she calls friends and family.

 

Only, it's done quietly, every day, without a graduation, tuition or degree. So of course it's deemed less worthy. Then, you graduate to your own kid, and only get your PhD after another 20 some odd years when they grow up. It's a long, hard, education.

 

Again, another feminist turn upside down.

 

And I'm speaking of myself in that first paragraph, too, because If I have an ounce of good mother in me it's despite how I was raised.

 

So I think women earned the right to identify themselves as Mother First.

Edited October 20, 2012 by justamouse

[Trish]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170373/im-not-mother-first#

 

I got into a huge argument last night on facebook about this, and ended up permanently deleting my account (or I am in the process of that, I have to wait 2 weeks) because I was called so many names and had so many nasty things said about me and my family just because I shared my opinion on this article. Granted, it was on my cousin's wall and the people who attacked me are all of her very liberal friends who I have very little in common with (also, who don't know me, never have met me, never have even seen me), but it was still very hurtful.

 

I'm wondering if I am way off base and what the general concensus is.

 

ETA: She does mention political candidates in the article, but it is an article on mothering, not politics.

 

I didn't follow the link, don't know what the article is about. Just wanted to say that I read Facebook to find out about what family & friends are doing. I post a little bit, not much. I don't look at the political/social commentary at all.

 

This is why. :glare:

[Bluegoat]

Apart from the fact that I have a total girl crush on you :D...

 

What does the bolded mean (is that Canadian speak?)?

 

I don't think anyone has had a girl crush on me before! :001_smile:

As far as I know its British in origin, but I think it is a pretty common expression in Canada. It is roughly the same as "been given a raw deal", or treated unfairly. The implication is that the person has not been given their due in some sense.

[justamouse]

I don't think anyone has had a girl crush on me before! :001_smile:

As far as I know its British in origin, but I think it is a pretty common expression in Canada. It is roughly the same as "been given a raw deal", or treated unfairly. The implication is that the person has not been given their due in some sense.

 

Ah, ok, I thought so because of context, but wanted to make sure. Thank you.