"The Good Girls Revolt" Book Review

First published on July 26, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/07/26/the-good-girls-revolt-by-lynn-povich/

AVAILABLE SEPTEMBER 2012

NEWSWEEK published a cover story on the feminist movement entitled “Women in Revolt” in March of 1970. The day the issue was released, women employees at NEWSWEEK filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC against the magazine. THE GOOD GIRLS REVOLT: HOW THE WOMEN OF NEWSWEEK SUED THEIR BOSSES AND CHANGED THE WORKPLACE (by Lynn Povich,PublicAffairs Books, September 2012) tells the story not only of the lawsuit but also its aftermath and shows how the NEWSWEEK women’s actions and their complaint are still relevant today.

Povich describes the late 1960s and early 1970s at NEWSWEEK, and credits the magazine with evenhanded reporting even as it began to express an opinion and take sides on issues such as civil rights and the war in Vietnam. While those in senior positions, such as Oz Elliott, worked to promote equality between races, equality of women was not part of the equation. So distinct was the divide between women’s rights and the civil rights movement, that no black women atNEWSWEEK joined the forty-six white women who signed the lawsuit. Povich describes how, at the time, the black women identified more with race than with their gender. This divide is interesting given that it was Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act under which the complaint was made. Povich points out that this divide “was one of the chilling contradictions of the culture: advocating civil rights for all while tolerating—or overlooking—the subjugation of women.” Not all women at NEWSWEEK supported the lawsuit. Not even all women at the magazine were privy to the details of the lawsuit before it was filed, either. Helen Dudar at first couldn’t understand her colleagues’ actions, as she did not consider herself a feminist.

Helen Dudar, who worked for the New York Post and was hired by Newsweek as a consultant to write the original article, couldn’t understand her colleagues’ actions, as she did not consider herself a feminist. Povich quotes Dudar, “I have spent years rejecting feminists without bothering to look too closely at their charges…It has always been easy to dismiss substance out of dislike for style.” This comment deserves further analysis, as later in the book, Povich describes how when the fortieth anniversary of the lawsuit approached, and an article about it was published at NEWSWEEK, with writers commenting on what was accomplished and what remained to be accomplished, the feminist blog Jezebel reacted harshly to what was written. The writers felt attacked “from within” the current feminist tribe.

While Dudar may have rejected substance because she was put off by style, I believe this is true with what are considered “extreme” feminist publications today. Rather than attack one another for not being “feminist enough,” we need to rally around causes and issues. We may work to expand the issue or awareness without attacking the messenger or the style of the message. I don’t advocate herein for sugarcoating or taking the “good girl” approach to a brasher one. I am merely against infighting.

In light of the past several weeks of articles here at inContext that I’ve written, there is one quote I think is extremely relevant as we look at women in positions of power and how that changes things. Povich describes being approached by one of her writers when she was promoted to an editorial position. The writer, Ken Woodward, told Povich how he, at first, did not want to work with her and questioned her credentials. As he came to realize her talent and abilities, Woodward felt Povich’s presence actually humanized the work environment. He admitted to Povich that he previously claimed a doctor’s appointment if he wished to leave early to see his son’s baseball games. However, with a woman boss, he no longer felt the need to lie. Considering that this comment was made back in the 1970s, it is astounding to consider the implications of this today. THE GOOD GIRLS REVOLT is am important reminder of what has happened in the past forty years, even as it serves as a lesson about what work lies ahead of our society. As part of changing the rhetoric from things being “women’s issues” to being issues affecting everyone, I purposefully chose “society” versus claiming that changes in the workplace are needed specifically for women. Woodward’s desire to be an active father makes him an unwitting precursor to the current movement toward changes needed for families in how childrearing and work combine (or don’t).

THE GOOD GIRLS REVOLT: HOW THE WOMEN OF NEWSWEEK SUED THEIR BOSSES AND CHANGED THE WORKPLACE by Lynn Povich will be available September 10, 2012 from PublicAffairs Books.

The Mommy Wars Continue: Birth Choices As Battle Zone

First published July 12, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/07/12/the-mommy-wars-continue-birth-choices-as-battle-zone/

PHOTO BY DENNIS MOJADO

Women at baby showers bristle or exchange knowing looks when the guest of honor starts down a path describing her natural birth plan. What would otherwise be close friends or family members become “frenemies.” As soon as they can excuse themselves, those who have already had children, and who chose epidural or other anesthesia to assist their labors, gather around the punch bowl to exchange glances or to make predictive comments. “We’ll see how she feels about natural childbirth when she’s had seventeen hours of labor,” an aunt says to the mother’s best friend, who smiles and nods in agreement, both with eyebrows raised.

Why do women continue to attack one another for choices about how each chooses to conduct her pregnancy and how she gives birth? The most recent victim of this backlash is Miranda Kerr. The lambasting is particularly vengeful when a model or actress, who has inevitably recovered her pre-baby body, with seeming ease, claims the benefits of long-term breastfeeding or advocates for natural childbirth. Women bloggers take umbrage and claim they want the offending fellow mother to keep it to herself.

This article will be published on my son’s birthday. My son was born at home and I had the care of a midwife. Throughout my pregnancies (my son is my second child), coworkers, friends and relatives chided us about our choice to have midwifery care and home births. “What if something goes wrong?” was the inevitable question. No one could name that “something” so that we might be able to reply intelligently about each possible instance and what the midwives would do to handle it. It was always a mysterious “something” that was ominous yet unnameable.

I understand that women who plan on epidurals before even seeing the plus sign on the pee stick or getting the call from the lab are sometimes attacked, as well. They’re cornered by people they consider “birth Nazis” who pepper them with statistics about complications from epidurals, about the need for antibiotics for epidural fevers and about their increased chances of Cesarean section when epidurals are used. These women feel as equally attacked and under pressure as I did, just from another angle.

What I advocate for is for choice for women. I specifically desire informed choice, yet defining the word “informed” is a daunting task. Not everyone wants to be informed about everything. Especially where medicine and medical care are concerned, many people just want someone to “fix it” and want to leave judgments about what is o.k. and what is not o.k. to their doctors. When the doctor makes a decision or allows a woman to make a choice and she later determines she was not as informed as she might have been, lawsuits occur. There are presently lawsuits against doctors who did not perform Cesarean sections, and there are dead babies and disabled babies lined up in pictures in courtrooms. There are also women who sue for unnecessary Cesareans. They claim the doctor acted too soon, that his or her prediction of a large baby was inaccurate and/or that they had complications from the surgery of which they do not feel they were informed adequately. What are doctors and mothers to do?

Like novels that re-imagine history with alternate outcomes, we can never know what would have happened had any of us chosen different care providers, places of birth or even what we ate for breakfast (or didn’t) the day we began labor. Each woman can tell only her story of her birthing experience. For me, I believe (believe, not know) that had I been seeing an obstetrician, my first child would have been a C-section. She was large and I dilated and effaced before her due date. The doctor who had been my ob/gyn at the time would have offered to induce me, at the very least. Instead, I had midwifery care, and a planned home birth, wherein I labored at eight centimeters for six hours. I then labored at nine centimeters for two and a half more. I then pushed three times to birth my nine pounds, twelve ounces daughter. Other women, friends of mine, believe they would have died had they been at home for their births. They believe that their epidurals and C-sections saved them and their babies from certain death, grave illness or injury. They cite extended labors and intense pain, which they believe would have made them transport to a hospital for relief. Then, when labor stalled (possibly because of the epidural and possibly not because of anything done medically), and their baby’s heartbeat crashed upon the addition of pitocin to augment the stalled labor, they believe the subsequent C-section was medically necessary and also a lifesaver for all.

Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? None of us can turn back the experience to attempt it through the alternative. As such, we need to stop judging one another and our choices. We can validate the birth experience of a woman who felt relieved by epidural or other anesthesia and also the woman who chose an elective C-section so that her mother who lives across the country could plan to be there for the birth and early weeks. We can support the woman who chose a home birth and no intervention, and not chastise her for the supposed risks she took or call her “lucky” as a way of explaining away her “good fortune” of a birth as she desired it.

While I am firmly rooted in childbirth as a natural process, I am more deeply rooted in individual experiences of women as valid and worthy of respect. I’d like nothing more than to have every woman educated about all of the risks and benefits of each and every choice in pregnancy and birth. I’d also love it if that once that education was in place, and each woman felt as informed as she wished to be, that we could honor one another even as we make different choices for our children and ourselves. We need to stop attempting to silence women, as I know plenty of people who feel hesitant to speak of their planned C-section at a La Leche League meeting as I know of people hesitant to let on about their planned home birth to colleagues or relatives. Why silence any experience? Why not add to the discourse without judgment and validate each individual woman?

Delusions of Gender and "Having It All" - Book Review and Reflection

First published July 5, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/07/05/delusions-of-gender-and-having-it-all/

Over the past few weeks, inContext has looked at “dangerous questions” about possible differences between male and female brains, then mommy guilt and identity and motherhood. Last week, we took up the mantle of women in positions of power in government and business. Considering these related topics, I did some research on what information might shed further light into these issues.

Cordelia Fine attempts to debunk a lot of what gets passed off as solid science where male and female brains are concerned in her book DELUSIONS OF GENDER: HOW OUR MINDS, SOCIETY AND NEUROSEXISM CREATE DIFFERENCE. Fine contends that much of what we read in books and magazine articles about differences in female and male brains is actually more culturally and socially based than biologically “wired.” The author proposes two arguments to support her theory that there is very little difference between the actual brains of men and women and that the difference stems from culture. She also states that where gender and the brain are concerned, there have not been a great number of studies. Fine believes the psychological differences that we read about or hear about, which are expressed as hard science, are actually expressed in the ways they are because the researchers themselves are cultured to think of men and women in a particular way already.

This relates to Slaughter’s “having it all” article significantly, as Slaughter claimed women were not in positions of power because the jobs required extraordinary hours and time away from family that she and other women colleagues did not wish to take. The problem was characterized as that facing families, and men should not be away as much as they are, either. I claimed this was wishful thinking on the part of the author. I don’t mean to be cynical or a black cloud over the desired utopia wherein women and men are treated completely equally and that family time is valued by business. It is not the nature of business to value family, since family does not make businesses money, which is what they are in the business of doing in a capitalist society and economy.

Yes, there are employers who value individual employees, and that have generous leave time that allows employees to structure time away from work in a way that allows honesty and relationships to be fostered between managers and employees. For the most part, this is not the case. Across the job spectrum, from minimum-wage positions to those in the highest brackets, all things are not equal in this area either. Hourly wage earners with lower incomes can’t typically take time off, not only because their employers are inflexible, but also because they can’t afford to lose the pay that time off would inevitably cause.

In light of Fine’s book, the “dangerous question” of whether the majority of female brains are different from men’s brains still looms. Even asking the question begs neurosexism as when we ask, we typically do not see it as differences between two types of brains, but rather how one is different from the other. This is a subtle nuance, and the main point of what Fine discusses in the first part of her book. How we ask the question is shaped by how we are cultured. Since Slaughter’s article, James Joyner,managing editor at THE ATLANTIC Council, stood up for the male side of this issue and stated exactly what I did: men never have “had it all” and that a job needs your full attention and so do your children. (His response, from the male viewpoint, is extremely compelling since he is the father of two young children, and after the death of his wife, has turned down career opportunities to spend more time with his children.)

As more women enter the workforce, and remain there after having children, we’ve seen the great divide between men’s and women’s experience of this cultural and societal change. In some instances, we’ve seen families suffer due to the demanding career or work of one or both parents—at all ends of the income spectrum. Where “mommy guilt” comes in is for those in the upper income brackets who look at it like they choose to work when they could easily live off of one salary. Kids of wealthy parents who work a lot sometimes fall through the cracks or get into trouble or do poorly in school. However, the statistics about poverty tell the same sad tale of kids and their potential being cut short due to parental work schedules.

While we should not stop reaching for ideals, or dreaming about an actual balance between the requirements of work and raising children, we cannot think there are any easy solutions or once-size-fits-all fixes. I’m not sure that even legislation that extends or builds upon that which is in place presently can solve the situation, either. Certainly, legislation helps extend equality to employees across the income spectrum. However, as most of us have experienced ourselves or seen others deal with in their respective jobs, a piece of legislation does not help when the culture of a workplace casts a negative eye on it. As Joyner says, we cannot view childcare issues or work/family balance as women’s issues. We must include men’s voices and experiences when we think about parents, not just mothers, being active parts of their children’s lives. And, I suppose for now, we can also put aside questions of whether there are or are not differences in the actual brains of women and men, and focus on the ways in which culture and socialization ask different things of each sex. Maybe asking the question about differences between female and male brains is not so much a question for neuroscience to answer, especially until we unravel the culture and society that are the context for such a question. Thus, when Slaughter claims she felt more compelled to be home with her struggling son than did her husband, this may not be biology or neurology after all, but rather social and cultural conditioning.

More Commentary on Anne-Marie Slaughter's Lament and What About a Woman President?

First published June 28, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/06/28/more-commentary-on-anne-marie-slaughters-lament-and-what-about-a-woman-president/

The hot button issue of the day is Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article in THE ATLANTIC entitled “Women Still Can’t Have It All.” From the NEW YORK TIMES to two different NPR programs (On Point and the Diane Rehm Show), to countless blog posts, comments on the articles and radio shows online, what Slaughter wrote is being discussed. I believe this was her point, despite the criticism she’s taken personally as fall-out from her article. The article addresses mommy guilt along with women’s identity after childbearing, two topics INCONTEXT covered over the past few weeks.

Slaughter claims we need to change our culture and society where women, work and family are concerned. The author states this kind of change would not only benefit women, but also men and children. I hope to contribute to the national discussion on “having it all.” Some of what I write may seem combative, and my last point might seem downright ugly or anti-woman. I don’t take issue with Slaughter’s experience or her article so much as hope to expand it, and widen the experiences represented in the challenge all families, women, children and men face. I want to ask difficult questions, not to plant seeds of doubt, but rather to expand the discourse.

For a great majority of women, myself included, Slaughter’s stance that women feel compelled to be there for their own children is accurate. Whether this is partly biological and partly socio-cultural, it exists and is palpable for many women who must make sacrifices and difficult choices. When Slaughter writes about “having it all,” she means a high-powered career and also a family, for whom she is available as needed. This idea of “having it all” is a women’s issue, on the one hand, because women invented it. It is not the issue of men, as men have never “had it all.” They are either successful in high profile and/or high power positions and largely absent from their families, or even if available at times, they do not perform the greatest portion of household tasks or childrearing duties in addition to their high-powered paying job. Certainly, in today’s world, where women represent almost half the households in the country as main breadwinners or contribute at least half of a family’s total income, and men who stay home are as marginalized as women who do not work outside the home, the issue has expanded to include men, who have taken up the other half of the banner along with women. On the other hand, more men do want to be active, involved parents, and thus have spoken up about wanting and needing more flexibility in the workplace themselves.

In our global, capitalist, twenty-four hour, technological world, I don’t think work/life balance and the flexibility a family requires are even remote possibilities. The news cycle, business, politics, foreign policy, and caregiving never sleep. For some positions, ultimately those in power, one simply cannot be available for family and also be in charge. (More on this later.)

Slaughter admits her own privilege in her article, and knows that her situation is very different from the majority of the population wherein her work has had greater flexibility than most people can afford or find with employers—men or women. There are also plenty of women who don’t have the option of leaving a post after two years when their junior high school children struggle with school. I refer to our women in uniform, specifically. When a military mom is deployed, she can Skype her child who might live with grandma or an aunt, yet she definitely has no choice to leave her post and rush home to fix the homework problem. Women who are single heads of household who work three jobs to meet the rent also do not have the option to quit their jobs to be available for algebra assignments. And, no amount of change in the corporate or governmental structure is likely to change this for men or women in particular positions.

We’re horrified by women who choose careers over full-time motherhood. I wrote about Rahna Reiko Rizzuto (inContext, July 21, 2011) who left her children for work. Another example of such a woman is Dorothea Lange, who (along with her husband) essentially abandoned her children to the 1930s equivalent of foster care when her dream photography job came along. What interests me most about Ms. Lange is that her husband chose to accompany her as her assistant. Their own children, the Lange offspring, do not harbor negative feelings toward their father for leaving, yet they do blame their mother and question her motives. Technically speaking, it was her job, and their father might have easily remained home as the primary caregiver, a role that I know was virtually unheard of at the time. And yet, it is Ms. Lange who suffered the criticism, not her husband.

So, while Lange and Rizzuto are two examples of women who do not share Ms. Slaughter’s and my propensity toward being as present as possible for our children, even at the sacrifice of our strongly desired careers, as I stated earlier, I believe most women find themselves equally pulled toward parenting no matter how much they value their work. If we focus on women in positions of power, which Slaughter and other women of her ilk say may be the answer to the conundrum, let’s take the presidency as an example. Our president must be infinitely available to handle all major national and international crises, no matter what is going on at home. While he might, on occasion, read over an essay or assist with word problems, I do not believe President Obama allows these concerns to enter his mind when he’s in the situation room at the White House. If we believe Ms. Slaughter, then we have to wonder whether we want a woman as president, or at least a woman who has children still at home. We can’t elect a woman who will decide the job is too much as her teenagers begin high school or junior high. She can’t really quit after a two-year stint, either.

This discussion is important because as we continue to wonder about a woman as president in the United States, we need to explore what it is we ask of women, what we will accept from women and even from men. Presidents are “family” men historically. We like to think of our presidents as at least a little “like us” and understanding of the challenges families face. We recognize that some women will choose to forego public service careers to be more present mothers than such career choices might allow. When we find women like Lange or Rizzuto, we need to avoid rushing to judgment and vilify them. What is wrong with a woman choosing her career goals over her role as mother? “Plenty!” is the answer I hear from women and men. Yet, we never, ever question a man doing this very same thing. In fact, we commend him for his sacrifice.

As a voting public, we must decide what it is we ask of women, at all job positions and all levels of income. We need to re-examine what we desire in a presidential candidate, male or female. Whether you agree with her politics or not, Sarah Palin faced sharp criticism and questioning as a female vice presidential candidate with a very young child on the campaign trail. She also faced severe criticism for embracing policies about abstinence as sex education, when her own daughter obviously did not choose abstinence. Pundits were quick to ask whether Ms. Palin should have been home a bit more than in a governmental office so as to have prevented such circumstances.

If I take a moment to propose a male candidate with a young baby and pregnant teen daughter, I have to say that I can’t imagine the media wondering about his ability to lead or his dedication to his family. In that instance, it would be the daughter who was blamed for “marring” her father’s candidacy, and the mother would be questioned about her mothering skills. Overall, these issues would never come to bear on the male candidate’s ability to do his job.

I don’t have an answer to this difficult, challenging and volatile question of how we both honor women’s desires to be present when needed by their families and also in positions of power and prestige with rewarding careers. I applaud Slaughter for opening the floor for discussion of an issue so many women only whisper to one another about, and for speaking from the heart about her personal struggles with being drawn to work that requires so much from her, and which also asks too much of her when she feels that parenting is the primary task at which she must excel at a particular moment of her life and career. This issue is one that men, women and families definitely need to address, at all ends of the socio-economic spectrum. The challenge is to keep Slaughter’s comments from promoting a dismissal of women as contenders in powerful positions.

"Georgie's Big Break" by Monica Drake - Review and Reflection

First published June 14, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/06/14/georgies-big-break-by-monica-drake/

Last week, I tackled “mommy guilt,” and this week, we’ll look at female identity after childbirth through the lens of the short story, GEORGIE’S BIG BREAK, by Monica Drake. The story has been made into a short film, for which I could not find a release date. The original short story was published in 2009 in THE SUN magazine, the full text of which you can read here.

Georgie is a new mother on maternity leave from a college faculty position. She reads about the local upcoming literary expedition, knows her department chair serves on the board of the festival, and thinks that it would not only be a day out for her, a day to be “Georgie,” versus “Georgie the mom,” but also a chance for her to score points that might help her gain tenure when she goes back to teaching. She volunteers to help, hoping her contribution will be noticed.

What ensues is maddening for the injustice Georgie suffers, hilarious for how ridiculous we know it’s going to be and poignant as we possibly recognize ourselves in what we read. We can “laugh now” as we look back at our newly-minted mother selves, yet at the time, we were likely holding back tears of humiliation as well as a dose of healthy rage. Georgie is assigned “Mr. Clifford,” who she assumes is a particular author. [Interestingly, Drake is unkind to the adolescent girl Georgie hires to assist her on this (seemingly) simple day trip. The girl from the neighborhood is described in less-than-admirable terms.] While Georgie is excited to attend the literary event, she can’t stand the thought of leaving her young baby in the care of another, so she determines that the sitter will accompany her and Elana to the festival. Yes, I know, anyone who tried to do this with her own child will cringe as she reads this. The anxiety we feel leading up to and during this kind of outing is palpable, even when only in text and not our own immediate experience.

Of course, there’s the standard “comedy routine” of the cliché, but also all-too-true, things like Elana spitting up on Georgie after they leave the house, so that she cannot change her shirt. There’s the baby who will not be comforted by anyone but mom, (of course) so that the presence of the sitter is almost laughable. There is the running into an old lover, who was once her professor, and his much-younger, current girlfriend. Yes, all cringe-inducing, and so typical that we’re not sure whether to call it cliché or be maddened by how true the “cliché” really is.

Spoiler Alert: Georgie meets “Mr. Clifford” who is none other than, (you might have guessed if you have kids yourself…more on this “assumption of knowledge” later), Clifford the Big Red Dog. He’s a guest of the children’s literature portion of the festival.

Then, the ultimate insult comes when the department head, who Georgie hoped she’d impress with her presence, is the person who set Georgie up with the Clifford the Dog gig. Georgie is affronted, her mind whirls wondering why motherhood has suddenly steered her in the direction of cartoon characters in the eyes of her boss. As readers, we’re just as appalled that giving birth has somehow suddenly made a woman with a PhD in literature an honorary and instantaneous expert in (and avid fan of) children’s literature. On the one hand, it’s a compliment that someone might think that the act of birthing conveys wisdom in areas outside of birth itself. On the other hand, just because a woman has given birth, does not mean she is or wants to be an expert in children’s literature. No man returning to a faculty position in a literature department at any college was likely assigned a children’s book costumed character at his first literary expedition after the birth of his child!

As Georgie’s mind attempts to process everything that has just happened to her in the fifteen minutes that have passed since she arrived at the venue, her body whirls around quickly to escape the department head in an effort to find space to think. She trips and falls to the floor. A famous actor and his entourage were right where Georgie spun around to walk away, and while he attempts to reach out a hand to help her up, she feels her body lifted from behind. Clifford has come to the rescue. “He” stands Georgie up, dusts her off and takes charge of the diaper bag as well as Elana, who stops crying as soon as she’s removed from the sitter’s arms. Georgie then decides she knows who the person is inside the giant red costume. She knows it must be a mother. We end the story with Georgie wondering whether “Clifford” has “her” own master’s degree, is an aspiring writer herself, and has dreams beyond being assigned to a red, furry costume as a volunteer at a literary festival. Drake ends the story bringing us back to consider women’s identity, especially after childbirth when she says that Georgie feels as though Clifford is “how we dress a mom” and that the costume represents what we all see, yet that the role of mother hides “another person deep inside.”

While not every woman necessarily feels a reluctance to leave her newborn, many women do feel this way after giving birth. Maybe it is biology, and our hormones strongly bond us because at one point before society developed, our species could not survive with an apathetic mother. Because of this likelihood of attachment to our babies, women struggle with identity after giving birth. Even if we are fortunate enough to not have to worry about the financial aspect of childcare and can choose to remain home with our babies, we still feel “lost” where our former selves are concerned. If we return to work, we’d be horrified if no one asked about our child, yet we don’t want to be solely seen as “new mother” in the eyes of our colleagues. As usual, the patriarchal (as I will refer to it for lack of a better term, actually) rule is that motherhood and work are separate realms. There is no easy way (really) in most jobs to allow for simultaneous work and mothering. And, while I know there are those “working mother” magazine articles that try to make us all feel bad because they show singular women and their unique jobs and circumstances where a seemingly seamless meshing of both worlds occurs, those are not the norm, or the reality, for the majority of families. What I always shout at those articles (in my mind, since I’m always reading them in a doctor’s office waiting room) is this: “But what about her assistant? Does her assistant get to bring her baby to the office? Does the assistant get to leave for every appointment, recital and school event?” I bet she doesn’t. So, those articles that show how “one woman combines motherhood and a career” are just that, howONE, SINGLE WOMAN can do that. For the majority, it’s just not possible.

Not only that, most of us don’t want to combine mothering and work. It’s exhausting if you’ve tried it. And, no man has ever had to do such a thing, either! There is no male CEO who has an in-office nanny. He gets to leave for work and be Mr. CEO, only. So, not only are those “having it all” articles a falsehood for the general population, but they are also not necessarily what anyone wants. I’ve taken my children to work—lucky me, right? Just read about Georgie and see how “seamless” it is outside of a magazine article!

PHOTO CREDIT: SOPHIE LEBLANC

My own metaphor for motherhood is not a person in a costume, but rather the famous depiction of motherhood offered in the matroyshka or Russian nesting doll. There are multiple selves in a woman. Especially when one is a new mother. There is the young self, who still wants to sleep in on the weekends and have tea and toast in bed while reading until she decides to toss on shorts and hiking boots to take a spontaneous hike. There is the little girl who is not sure how she exactly got this baby in place of a doll, who could be put down anywhere with never a complaint. There is the woman who is a sister, daughter, cousin, friend, spouse, bus driver or account executive. Now that we’ve gotten rid of the mommy guilt from last week, it’s now time to embrace all of the “selves” in our own nesting doll of roles, and not demand that we let any one role overpower the others. That’s a tall order, and yes, I’ll get back to you once I’ve managed to balance all those roles in my own life.

"Mommy Guilt"

First published June 7, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/06/07/incontext-considers-mommy-guilt/

In a recent issue of MARTHA STEWART MAGAZINE, Alana Chernila wrote about “mommy guilt.” Chernila shared a story about running for public office and the toll it exacted on her family. An outing in a park ended with Chernila’s daughter, Sadie, disgruntled when she was not allowed to accompany a friend on a last-minute invitation for a canoeing session. In the car, Sadie declared, “I hate elections!” Chernila said her daughter’s words “hit me deep in my gut.”

Later that night, Chernila tried to make it up to Sadie by making homemade breakfast pastries, so that she could greet her children with delicious treats in the morning. Chernila’s “mommy guilt” was assuaged as her children reacted as she hoped, “marveling at the breakfast their mama had made for them.” So, mom attempts to make a difference and be a living example of an engaged citizen, and must feel badly because she has to deny her child a single canoe outing. As a result, she stays up later than the rest of the family, and gets up earlier than everyone else in the morning, so she can bake her way back into her children’s hearts.

What is this “mommy guilt” thing anyway? Why do women feel badly for having lives beyond that of their role as mothers? I ask myself these questions all the time. I wonder what it is in our society that makes moms feel guilty when we have to say “no,” or we can’t say “yes.” In my own life, I consider that my son will undergo surgery in a few weeks. There is no question that I will be at the hospital, and will accompany him every step of the way. My husband will not be there with us. Partly this is because his line of work doesn’t provide personal or sick days, and a back injury required him to use his vacation to heal earlier this year. Yet, my husband feels no “guilt.” He knows I’m capable of handling the situation with aplomb. In fact, I’ve done it a few times in our children’s lives. However, I know that if I was working as the main breadwinner, I don’t know that I’d be able to work if my child was having surgery. I would judge myself and demand my presence. My own mind admonishes, “What kind of mother doesn’t take off work when her child needs surgery?” No one, including me, judges my husband for not being there. He’s the dad. He’s out earning the money that pays the insurance premiums that help subsidize the operation and all the attendant costs and fees. Even when a mother is in that role, she is still supposed to be at the bedside.

It is this double demand of women, by women (of ourselves), that is what is known as “mommy guilt.” Why should Chernila feel so terrible for having a campaign event super-cede the whims of her daughter? Why should she stay up into the night and rise early to try to “fix” what was never really broken? Why did she feel it in her “gut” when her child lashed out in a selfish, childish manner when she couldn’t have her way? Why do women punish themselves for being human beings, even when we’re attempting to be positive role models through the actions and activities that might take us away from our families? It is only by answering these questions for ourselves, and catching ourselves before we allow guilt to settle into our hearts and stomachs that we might rid ourselves of this guilt.

Women are deemed selfish when we put our needs or desires before those of our families, especially our children. Whether it is an operation where both parents are not present, or an election and a campaign that takes a woman away from home, we need to stop feeling guilty and start realizing we are not and cannot be everything for everyone in our families all the time. That is the unhealthy role model and the bahaivior we should feel guilty perpetuating. When a father is on the campaign trail, no one questions his absence. Mom, back home, when the couple’s children declare that they “hate elections,” merely extols the virtues of the campaigning father. She tells the children how proud they should be of their dad, how they should be “extra good” so that it is easier on the father when he calls home. They should realize he is serving their community and see him as a role model of citizenship. They should see him as a man of conviction, who identifies things that need changing, and goes about putting himself in a position to make change. For his part, while the campaigning dad might want to be there for the Brownie Girl Scout ceremony or the spelling bee, he doesn’t ever express that as “daddy guilt.” And, when my husband can’t be at the hospital for our son’s surgery, he doesn’t feel guilty, either. Rather, he feels like he is doing something that is supportive, in fact, by working! The only way we can rid ourselves (and the world) of mommy guilt is to stop reprimanding ourselves for being autonomous humans once our children leave our physical bodies. We need to value what it is we do and who we are in the world. This might help us rear daughters who will not suffer mommy guilt themselves!

Do Inquiring Female and Male Minds Want to Know?

First published May 31, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/05/31/do-inquiring-female-and-male-minds-want-to-know/

In the book WHAT’S YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA? (Edited by John Brockman, Harper Perennial, 2007) Steven Pinker’s contribution, “Groups of People May Differ Genetically in Their Average Talents and Temperaments,” references the infamous quote by former Harvard president, Larry Summers, wherein he suggested that men and women differ in the ways in which their brains function, and that this might contribute to the lack of equal representation of women in science and engineering. Pinker qualifies this by openly acknowledging that there are anomalies and exceptions, of course, to any generalization. The overarching point Summers wanted to make was to examine whether such differences exist, and what to do about them, not whether they proved anything else, such as whether women should be encouraged to enter fields like math and science. The comment was not about individual men or women. It was an intellectual inquiry. Whether one finds it appalling or not, the answer to such a question is interesting in its own right. I want to unequivocally state that a generality is not applicable individually. Whether such a generality MIGHT be true for any population (a race, ethnicity, or gender), at the individual level, it is entirely insignificant.

Unlike Pinker, I do not think this is a dangerous idea or question, in and of itself. What I want to think about in this forum is whether in searching for equality we really seek sameness, even if that is biologically and/or biochemically impossible (see article about Summers’s comments and the biological differences between genders here). Why is it “dangerous” that the minds of men and women might be different, generally speaking? This does not apply at an individual level, and so dashing women from mathematics or science programs makes no sense.

There are women like Lynn Margulis, who are perfectly suited to science, and who have proposed ground-breaking theory of which the impact would be no less controversial and/or significant than natural selection as Darwin proposed. (Margulis posits, and I’m over-simplifying, that “we,” as we think of ourselves as humans, are actually evolved to serve as hosts to bacteria. Thus, her idea might diminish the significance of evolution if all animals—including humans, of course—are walking (swimming, flying, etc.) habitats for bacteria. There are many women throughout history and today who are performing research who are exceptions to Summers’s generalized suggestion, and I only mention Margulis herein because I’m familiar with her work (and find it infinitely fascinating to consider).

Is it really “dangerous” (even if it is politically incorrect for a university president who is so often in the public sphere at such a renowned institution of higher learning) to consider that, generally speaking, men and women are different? I regularly joke about this with women friends. We commiserate lightheartedly about how much more capable we are at multi-tasking than are our husbands. We joke about their befuddlement when we sit at dinner and have the following type of exchange:

Wife: “TOMORROW JOSH HAS A DENTIST APPOINTMENT AT TWO-THIRTY, SO I’M LEAVING WORK EARLY TO TAKE HIM TO THAT. KIM HAS A DRAMA CLUB MEETING AFTER SCHOOL, AND WILL NEED TO BE PICKED UP AT FIVE. I’LL STOP AT THE STORE TO PICK UP WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE DINNER, INSTEAD OF YOU DOING THAT, SINCE I’LL BE NEAR XYZ GROCERY STORE AND YOU WON’T HAVE TIME TO STOP IF YOU’RE PICKING UP KIM.”

Husband, with confused countenance, asks, “WHAT?”

Wife: “UGH, I JUST NEED YOU TO PICK KIM UP AT FIVE.”

Husband: “I THOUGHT WE NEEDED BROCCOLI FOR DINNER? YOU ASKED ME YESTERDAY TO STOP AT ABC GROCERY STORE.”

Wife (sighs): “I’M GETTING THE BROCCOLI BECAUSE IF YOU GET KIM YOU WON’T HAVE TIME.”

Husband (trying to be helpful): “I CAN GET KIM AND THEN GET THE BROCCOLI.”

Exasperated Wife: “IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR YOU TO GO BACK ACROSS TOWN AT RUSH HOUR. I’M GOING TO BE NEAR XYZ GROCERY STORE AFTER JOSH’S DENTAL APPOINTMENT, SO I WILL LEAVE THERE AT THREE-THIRTY AND GET THE BROCCOLI AND THEN COME HOME.”

Husband: “WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS CHANGING THINGS?”

Wife: “WILL YOU JUST PICK UP KIM OR NOT?”
(The wife knows that the school is not near the grocery store, that her husband will leave work and just barely make the pick up at five o’clock without the extra stop. She also knows that because their son’s appointment is earlier, that she can easily stop at another grocery store to get what they need, which will allow them to all arrive home about the same time. She’s trying to save steps, save time, and meet the needs of the entire family with all of this jostling.)

Now, I offer the above scenario with the utmost respect for my husband. It’s not like he’s a simpleton. He is a carpenter and thus skilled in many ways. He builds acoustic guitars. His mind is more than capable of anticipating upcoming steps in complex ways, including building steps! (Do you have any idea how complex stairs really are to build? Do you ever even think of them, other than to assume their placement underfoot?) My husband figures out mechanical things, and enjoys doing so, which, I believe, is my point, Pinker’s idea, and Summers’s suggestion. It’s not like I couldn’t, or am not capable of figuring out why the switch on the stove burner is not working and what part is required to fix it. I’m certainly able to do that. The difference is that I don’t care to think about those things. Conversely, my husband could plan a birthday party, make travel arrangements and navigate the rat’s nest that is modern health insurance policy fine print. The difference there is that he’d rather fix the stove, and I’d rather doALL of the other tasks versus fix the stove. (For the record, again proving that generalities do not apply to individuals, we have friends for whom this is exactly the opposite: she grouts the tub and he does all the baking!)

Getting back to my conversation with my friend about our exasperation over husbands and their abilities versus our own, I offer up a wholly unscientific hypothesis about why men can’t change gears when it comes to picking up broccoli and kids after school. (Please take this with tongue planted firmly in cheek—I’m not a biologist or anthropologist!) I posit this: evolution has not caught up with modern culture and society. Men’s brains are focused on one thing. This is why they aren’t freaked out when they go back to work after having babies, possibly, as well. They were the hunters, and so had to sit still, quiet and focus. They had to be patient and not flitter about. They had to leave their young children to do this, too. Women, on the other hand, were the gatherers. We carried one child on a hip while we watched out for predators. We might have also watched the toddlers of our fellow women while collecting berries, roots, and mushrooms. While watching kids, being aware of predators and letting the babe on our hip nurse, we differentiated between the poisonous Panther and the delicious Blusher fungi. Bringing our discussion of Lynn Margulis full circle here, we perpetuated generations so that we might be the best habitats for bacteria!

Finally, what if we were all the same? Neither of us (speaking of my husband and myself) would be motivated specifically toward any kind of task, per se. We’d be apathetic about each, and not really take pride in our prowess nor harbor the same respect for one another’s greater abilities. Thus, in our own family, we celebrate rather than bemoan our differing skills, even if when amongst women friends, I share my exasperation over his inability to handle changes as I coordinate the revolving door of our family’s schedule, activities, appointments, and lists. For us in particular, and to refute the ability of a study claiming differences in male and female brains as having any individual applicability, my husband would prefer to be the “homemaker” and not leave the house five days a week for work. I’d prefer to work full-time and leave the laundry and housecleaning to him entirely—an arrangement we’re working toward as I anticipate my master’s program this fall.