My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 5 seconds. If not, visit
http://thegirlrevolution.com
and update your bookmarks.

Showing posts with label working vs. stay-at-home mom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label working vs. stay-at-home mom. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Devaluation of Motherhood






by Tracee Sioux

When looking at 6 to 12 week maternity leave policies in the United States one has to wonder:

Do employers and lawmakers hate mothers?

Or do they hate babies?

After you push a human being out of your crotch and feel pressured to return to work before your stitches have even dissolved you have to wonder, Which of us to they hate more?

What causes policies that are detrimental to both mother and child?

Devaluation of motherhood.

What if anti-mother employment policies are a direct result of women criticizing motherhood? Women do it to preserve our hard-won place in public life. Perhaps, the end-result is damaging and harmful to working-mothers and their families because it manifests in anti-mothering employment policy.

I'm playing with the theory that the devaluation of motherhood is a bi-product of feminism and emancipation. An over-correction, if you will.

Follow my thinking here, for thousands of years women were submissive and oppressed. We were told the only thing we were qualified for was mothering. To break out of our narrowly-defined role, we did the only thing we could: we minimized and devalued motherhood.

Consider my family as a microcosm of the whole. In order for me, personally, to break away from my mother's Church and Society sanctioned stay-at-home-mom role I minimized what she did. The cleaning, the cooking, the nurturing, the caring, the self-sacrifice, the moral building, the breast-feeding, the birthing, the nursing, the educating, the training, the whole mothering bit got reduced to nothing. Nothing important or validating anyway.

Now that I have children of my own I can see that this so-called nothing is really what makes the world go round. The growing of people, nurturing human beings, the next generation, trumps professional achievement. I want both, but the mothering keeps the entire species evolving and thriving according to the scientific Grandmother hypothesis.

To break away, I devalued motherhood and then was shocked, angry and surprised that my husband would dare equate my mothering to nothing.

I think there is ample evidence, in the last 30 years, that men will follow our lead. They'll resist, but they will eventually follow. We are, as their mothers and wives, the most influential people in their lives. If we led them to devalue motherhood, then it stands to reason that we can lead them back.

Valuing motherhood starts with each of us. Obviously, we have made good progress. Women are not going to run back into their Normal Rockwell mothering roles, it didn't make us happy then for legitimate reasons.

But, I think it's a grave mistake to criticize the stay-at-home mom who does choose that role today. The stay-at-home mom reminds us that motherhood, in and of itself, is a valid ambition.

Why would employers and lawmakers hate mothers? It would be absurd to hate the very people they love most. Is it possible that anti-mother employment policies are the result of women devaluing motherhood?

Thoughts anyone?


Clarification: I use the term mothering and motherhood in a collective sense. For instance, though Oprah has no children I think she mothers all women. Likewise, Violet, who brings up some issues about mother's in the workplace has spent 15 years mothering me, though she suffered from infertility.

Clarificaton II: This is not meant to be a controversial article on working versus staying at home. I suggest that when we devalue one we devalue the other. It's meant to offer a solution:

When we value motherhood all women, working or not, mother or non-mother, single or married, benefit from family-friendly (however you want to define family is fine with me) policies.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Unrealistic Expectations of Perfection



By Tracee Sioux

I think Hillary Clinton should be the next president because it will change the potential of every girl in America. Changing the potential of every girl is changing the potential of half the population in America. That is not insignificant. I also happen to agree with her politics, but if she were a Republican, say Condoleeza Rice, current National Security Advisor, I would vote for her. I want to vote for a woman in 2008 because I want to empower girls.

The argument against Hillary Clinton I've been hearing from Republican women is upsetting me.

I would love a woman but not Hillary Clinton, she's not a very good role model.

What really irritates me about this argument is that these exact same women are totally fine with George W. Bush as a good role model. Hello, the man did cocaine and is a recovering alcoholic. He got a DUI for heaven's sake. And he's a good role model?

I'm trying to figure out how exactly Hillary Clinton is a negative role model and I'm coming up empty. Yeah, there was White Water, but I'm not clear anymore whether Hillary did anything wrong there. Martha Stewart actually went to prison for her financial scandal, but everyone's willing to let her go on with her career baking and cleaning and decorating.

Her biggest flaw, as far as I can tell, is that she's married to Bill Clinton and stayed even though he cheated on her in a very public and humiliating way. But, she's not the one who did anything wrong in that situation. He was the sleezeball there, all she did was not divorce him.

She had one child. Is it that she worked as a lawyer and made professional strides while mothering Chelsea? Is that the unforgivable as far as conservative women go?

Hasn't every president been professionally ambitious? Haven't they all been fathers with careers that often kept them away from their kids? I imagine Hillary, while being professionally ambitious, was most-likely even more pro-active about parenting Chelsea than any of the ambitious men have been about fathering their children.

Chelsea is not a child and seems to have survived her parents' marriage. She seems to have survived having a professional mother.

Why are the choices Hillary made as a mother getting in the way of her Presidential potential?

Why are women willing to let the work vs. stay-at-home mothering argument get in the way of finally achieving some gender-wide empowerment by being represented at the highest level of government?

I challenged a smart, thinking, former professional woman with why she thought George W. Bush was a good-enough role model, even though he had been an alcoholic with a DUI conviction and had used cocaine. She said she believed in redemption and thought changing his ways was being a good example.

I just wonder why she can't apply the same standard of good-enough to Hillary Clinton. Why can't the forgiveness and redemption extend to a woman candidate? I think it all goes to back to the unrealistic expectations women have for ourselves and each other. If we free ourselves of that burden we might actually be represented in government and therefore be empowered as a whole.

Gender equality is good for every woman and every girl. Whether a woman counts herself as a Conservative Christian Republican Stay-At-Home Mom or she writes her definition as a Liberal Angry Lesbian Childless Activist, empowerment is a good thing. The further one of us gets politically the more options and choices all of us have.

In the end we're all women and I think we can afford to be on the same team to further our collective empowerment. Hillary Clinton may not be the only path to empowerment, but she represents an available and achievable one right now.

Showing posts with label working vs. stay-at-home mom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label working vs. stay-at-home mom. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Devaluation of Motherhood






by Tracee Sioux

When looking at 6 to 12 week maternity leave policies in the United States one has to wonder:

Do employers and lawmakers hate mothers?

Or do they hate babies?

After you push a human being out of your crotch and feel pressured to return to work before your stitches have even dissolved you have to wonder, Which of us to they hate more?

What causes policies that are detrimental to both mother and child?

Devaluation of motherhood.

What if anti-mother employment policies are a direct result of women criticizing motherhood? Women do it to preserve our hard-won place in public life. Perhaps, the end-result is damaging and harmful to working-mothers and their families because it manifests in anti-mothering employment policy.

I'm playing with the theory that the devaluation of motherhood is a bi-product of feminism and emancipation. An over-correction, if you will.

Follow my thinking here, for thousands of years women were submissive and oppressed. We were told the only thing we were qualified for was mothering. To break out of our narrowly-defined role, we did the only thing we could: we minimized and devalued motherhood.

Consider my family as a microcosm of the whole. In order for me, personally, to break away from my mother's Church and Society sanctioned stay-at-home-mom role I minimized what she did. The cleaning, the cooking, the nurturing, the caring, the self-sacrifice, the moral building, the breast-feeding, the birthing, the nursing, the educating, the training, the whole mothering bit got reduced to nothing. Nothing important or validating anyway.

Now that I have children of my own I can see that this so-called nothing is really what makes the world go round. The growing of people, nurturing human beings, the next generation, trumps professional achievement. I want both, but the mothering keeps the entire species evolving and thriving according to the scientific Grandmother hypothesis.

To break away, I devalued motherhood and then was shocked, angry and surprised that my husband would dare equate my mothering to nothing.

I think there is ample evidence, in the last 30 years, that men will follow our lead. They'll resist, but they will eventually follow. We are, as their mothers and wives, the most influential people in their lives. If we led them to devalue motherhood, then it stands to reason that we can lead them back.

Valuing motherhood starts with each of us. Obviously, we have made good progress. Women are not going to run back into their Normal Rockwell mothering roles, it didn't make us happy then for legitimate reasons.

But, I think it's a grave mistake to criticize the stay-at-home mom who does choose that role today. The stay-at-home mom reminds us that motherhood, in and of itself, is a valid ambition.

Why would employers and lawmakers hate mothers? It would be absurd to hate the very people they love most. Is it possible that anti-mother employment policies are the result of women devaluing motherhood?

Thoughts anyone?


Clarification: I use the term mothering and motherhood in a collective sense. For instance, though Oprah has no children I think she mothers all women. Likewise, Violet, who brings up some issues about mother's in the workplace has spent 15 years mothering me, though she suffered from infertility.

Clarificaton II: This is not meant to be a controversial article on working versus staying at home. I suggest that when we devalue one we devalue the other. It's meant to offer a solution:

When we value motherhood all women, working or not, mother or non-mother, single or married, benefit from family-friendly (however you want to define family is fine with me) policies.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Unrealistic Expectations of Perfection



By Tracee Sioux

I think Hillary Clinton should be the next president because it will change the potential of every girl in America. Changing the potential of every girl is changing the potential of half the population in America. That is not insignificant. I also happen to agree with her politics, but if she were a Republican, say Condoleeza Rice, current National Security Advisor, I would vote for her. I want to vote for a woman in 2008 because I want to empower girls.

The argument against Hillary Clinton I've been hearing from Republican women is upsetting me.

I would love a woman but not Hillary Clinton, she's not a very good role model.

What really irritates me about this argument is that these exact same women are totally fine with George W. Bush as a good role model. Hello, the man did cocaine and is a recovering alcoholic. He got a DUI for heaven's sake. And he's a good role model?

I'm trying to figure out how exactly Hillary Clinton is a negative role model and I'm coming up empty. Yeah, there was White Water, but I'm not clear anymore whether Hillary did anything wrong there. Martha Stewart actually went to prison for her financial scandal, but everyone's willing to let her go on with her career baking and cleaning and decorating.

Her biggest flaw, as far as I can tell, is that she's married to Bill Clinton and stayed even though he cheated on her in a very public and humiliating way. But, she's not the one who did anything wrong in that situation. He was the sleezeball there, all she did was not divorce him.

She had one child. Is it that she worked as a lawyer and made professional strides while mothering Chelsea? Is that the unforgivable as far as conservative women go?

Hasn't every president been professionally ambitious? Haven't they all been fathers with careers that often kept them away from their kids? I imagine Hillary, while being professionally ambitious, was most-likely even more pro-active about parenting Chelsea than any of the ambitious men have been about fathering their children.

Chelsea is not a child and seems to have survived her parents' marriage. She seems to have survived having a professional mother.

Why are the choices Hillary made as a mother getting in the way of her Presidential potential?

Why are women willing to let the work vs. stay-at-home mothering argument get in the way of finally achieving some gender-wide empowerment by being represented at the highest level of government?

I challenged a smart, thinking, former professional woman with why she thought George W. Bush was a good-enough role model, even though he had been an alcoholic with a DUI conviction and had used cocaine. She said she believed in redemption and thought changing his ways was being a good example.

I just wonder why she can't apply the same standard of good-enough to Hillary Clinton. Why can't the forgiveness and redemption extend to a woman candidate? I think it all goes to back to the unrealistic expectations women have for ourselves and each other. If we free ourselves of that burden we might actually be represented in government and therefore be empowered as a whole.

Gender equality is good for every woman and every girl. Whether a woman counts herself as a Conservative Christian Republican Stay-At-Home Mom or she writes her definition as a Liberal Angry Lesbian Childless Activist, empowerment is a good thing. The further one of us gets politically the more options and choices all of us have.

In the end we're all women and I think we can afford to be on the same team to further our collective empowerment. Hillary Clinton may not be the only path to empowerment, but she represents an available and achievable one right now.