With American feminist writer, Amanda Marcotte today arguing the ‘Elisabeth Badinter case against a certain type of parenting – attachment/natural parenting‘ – I thought now might be a good time to re-post this old one from my archives.
When feelings run deep, as they do about mothers and motherhood, the temptation to make extreme statements is high… Motherhood is a raw, tender point of identity, and its relationship to other aspects of ourselves – our other aspirations, our need to work, our need for solitude – almost inevitably involves a tension. It is hard to sit with that tension, which is one reason discussions of motherhood tend toward a split view of the world.
Where we side depends on what we see as the most essential threat. For those working for gender equality over the past forty years, an enduring concern has been that women will be marched back home, restricting the exercise of their talents and their full participation in political and economic life. Efforts to mobilize public opinion against that regressive alternative have at times oversimplified women’s desire to mother and assigned it to a generally backward-looking, sentimental view of women’s place. When taken to the extreme, the argument suggests that women’s care for their children, the time spent as well as the emotions aroused, is foisted on them by purely external economic and ideological forces. Locating the sources of the desire to mother “out there” may temporarily banish the conflict, but ultimately it backfires, alienating women who feel it does not take into account, or help them to attain, their own valued maternal goals.
For those who identify most strongly with their role as mother, the greatest threat has been that caring for children and the honorable motivations behind it will be minimized and misunderstood, becoming one more source of women’s devaluation. Such women feel they suffer not at the hands of traditionalist ideology but rather from the general social devaluation of caregiving, a devaluation with economic and psychological effects. At times, proponents of this position insist on the essential differences between the sexes and the sanctity of conservative-defined “family values”. Such views end up alienating both women who question such prescriptive generalizations and those who feel their own sense of self or their aspirations are not reflected by them.
Most of us feel ill at ease at either pole of this debate, because though the poles represent opposing position, they both flatten the complexity of mothers’ own desires.
From Maternal Desire by Daphne de Marneffe. And I really enjoyed reading this book.
Amanda doesn’t have any children.
[…] Andie from blue milk was spurred to repost this gem on the long simmering debate over motherhood within feminism. […]
OMG. Thank you.
Planning on having children within the next 6 months. Have also done a reset on the career front. The tension is… a little heartbreaking. Especially since I don’t see my partner having tension over this.
I read the headline of that Slate piece and got excited- I’ve always argued that motherhood doesn’t have to mean squelching your ambitions. And then I was so disappointed when I read the actual story, to see more of the same over-generalizations and assumptions that set up a false dichotomy. Yes, some women will find long term breastfeeding and co-sleeping and other parenting decisions incompatible with their careers. But not all of us have found that, and to the extent that tension exists, why should we blame the kids? Why not blame the bosses?
For example, I had no problem breastfeeding two kids to about 2 years old while keeping my career. I could have kept going longer if I’d wanted. Why? Because I live in a state that protects my right to pump. Not that I ever had to call in that right- my (male) bosses never raised an eyebrow. Yes, this was lucky. But it isn’t rocket science. Every woman could have this. All it takes is a room with a door and an outlet and a little flexibility from the employer.
exactly! Blame the bosses!
more and more I think the viciousness comes from the displacement of conflict – instead of talking about workplace culture, or individual companies and bosses, or even father’s that don’t step up, we triangulate and talk about What’s Best for the Children. If we avoid the actual power differentials, pretty much all that’s left is personal attack.
Maybe I’m a bit tired from mothering but I struggled to understand what Marcotte is on about. I did gather though that she hadn’t read Badinter’s book. So seriously, what is the point of writing a piece like that?
Okay, so I’ve read your post about the book and its comments and I agree completely. I also agree with what Cloud said above. While I don’t have a high flying career I have a decent professional job and have managed to practice extended breastfeeding. One thing I don’t get about people taking this position is their lack of understanding of how breastfeeding works. Not only attachment parenting types breastfeed or even extended breastfeed. Lots of people incorporate elements AP into parenting without being AP. Obviously painting an extreme picture gives them something to write about but it’s lazy and dishonest.
@Notes to Self, As for the fathers, I know my brother really struggles with the separation he is expected to maintain between family life and work life and he has suffered professionally as a result of family needs. I bet there are men who are surprised at how this becomes an issue they didn’t expect before they had kids.
@Notes to self- I won’t lie, I found adjusting to motherhood hard. But the career part of it was not the hardest part for me. I never questioned that I wanted to keep the career. I know some women do, and some women decide they want a break. But a break doesn’t mean you can never go back. There are obstacles, yes, but there are also some of us who actively look to help people back in if they want to come back. And if you decide to never go back, that’s fine, too, really. I’m not sure this is something you can know ahead of time. I think you just have to jump in and then try to make your life match what you want.
I have also experienced very little conflict between how I want to mother (best described as AP-ish, I think) and my career (which happens to be in a male-dominated field). I think that is a combination of pure good luck, skill at my job, and not being afraid to ask for what I want at work. I’m a manager- I know how hard it is to find good people. I’ll bend over backward to accommodate the needs of my team! So I just assume my boss feels the same, and ask for what I want. So far, it has worked. But then, I haven’t wanted anything to out there.
I know that not every woman has had the positive experience I have had. But it CAN happen, so I say don’t worry too much now. Just go for it, hope for the best, and adjust as you go along.
Thank-you for this lovely post. Every time we get suckered into ‘lets you and her fight’ we all lose. And as cloud points out, we tend to lose track of who actually needs to be held accountable.
For the commenters who are apprehensive about how to maintain equality after children the following resources may be helpful.
http://www.thirdpath.org/
http://www.equallysharedparenting.com/
Also, although it is now twenty years old, ‘Halving it all’ by Francine Deutsch has some good insights into the reasons why so many couples weigh up their options and individually decide that really, the most sensible, rational choice in thier circumstances is conform to societal expectations. It was quite alarming how many of the couples she profiled started parenthood with what the woman understood to be a temporary concession to biology and lack of societal support for working families but maintained and deepened the inequity in household and child-related work even after the children started school.
Figuring out what the rationalizations are that justify that slow slide into greater inequality is an important first step to ensuring that temporary imbalances remain temporary.
I don’t think I’ve ever thrown up my hands and shouted “It’s complicated, okay?!” quite so many times in one day, Marcotte’s article having been the last of it before I turn in. I understand why people polarize issues, I get why sometimes it’s easiest and simplest to have a strong, clear message, but you’re absolutely right in that any generalization of that sort necessarily writes out and makes invisible some people – and in discussions like these, that would be some women – whose lives are just plain ol’ more complicated. I get that it’s probably fear motivating things, the fear that if you show a little compassion, make a gesture of understanding, you give an inch and they’ll take a mile and then where will we be? But the infighting isn’t getting us anywhere either.
I had to laugh, too, just a little, because where is this pressure to bedshare and breastfeed and attachment-parent that Marcotte talks about? Everyone I talk to in the real world seems just a little weirded out by “all that attachment stuff.” Is it really going mainstream?
[…] of my views on Badinter’s ideas here: Oppressed by breastfeeding, The mediocre mother, The split, How did the patriarchy influence parenting and what problems did it cause?, Feminism and […]
[…] decades old. I’ve talked about that here before with “How to explain desire”, “The split” , “Let’s get something straight about maternity leave” and “Feminists, a […]
[…] side with this argument because he’s a friend and he’s right, Hirshman has missed some critical steps in her thinking about feminism and maternal desire (though I still appreciate some of her […]
[…] written a lot about this topic previously here: Oppressed by breastfeeding, The mediocre mother, The split, How did the patriarchy influence parenting and what problems did it cause?, Feminism and […]
[…] The split […]
[…] written a lot about maternal desire here and how poorly understood that motivation is.. but I’ve not considered paternal […]