"As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night, she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question: Is this all?"
-Betty Freidan, The Feminine Mystique 1963
I read something in the newspaper a few weeks ago that I have been thinking about ever since. The article claimed that mothers today are even more oppressed than they had been in the 1950s, before the rise of second-wave feminism. Today, the "best mothers" are the mothers that can spend the most amount of time with their children. Soccer games, crafts, sewing halloween costumes, planning birthday parties and PTA meetings become the priority in these women's lives. It is as if they make a career out of their children's well-planned out weekly schedule. There isn't time to focus on a career/life of their own, because then who is going to organize Billy's boy scout meeting? And it is her turn to bring snacks to soccer. But what about the mothers that have jobs of their own? Single mothers, especially. Those going to school? Well, these are the moms that neglect their children and don't have time to make it to Sally's recital. So they are "bad" moms. Not spending enough (all) time with your children or focusing on a career or an education makes you a mother who does not devote enough time to your kids, and thus a less capable and nuturing mom than Suzy Homemaker is. And these women, who pursue other things in life than raising kids, feel quilty. They are supposed to feel inadequate. But on the other hand, those devoted mothers who have never missed a practice or recital don't have it so good either. Sure, they are the best moms--the ones who devote all their time and attention to their kids. And like all other things, time with their spouse is put on the backburner. But that's ok, because the most important thing in their lives are their children. That is what makes a good mother....
I can say with confidence that Betty Friedan would be disappointed. "The only way for a woman, as for a man, to find herself, to know herself as a person, is by creative work of her own. There is no other way.." (Friedan) I hardly think that finger painting with her kids can be considered "creative work of her own". But if she is pursuing work of her own, she is a bad, neglective mother. This is the problem that now HAS a name--women are kept from growing to their full human capacities by the totalizing identity of "mother". So why, in a time of radical feminism and the realization of women's oppression in a patriarchal society, in a time where women can make careers for themselves and be praised for it, why has this problem arisen yet again?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't think "the problem" ever went away. I don't think there ever was a time (since Betty or before her) when woman and mother were not immediately related concepts. Neither has there ever been a time in which the relationship between the two was not rife with complicated negotiation. But I also think it is a bit too simplistic to frame the relationship in the clear-cut false needs vs. true needs binary Friedan seems to imply. Who is to say that there are not women out there who find genuine happiness in lugging Suzy to soccer practice and carting Jimmy to ballet? It may be true that this happiness is mediated by a patriarchal understanding of motherhood as the ultimate purpose of womanhood, but does that make the happiness any less real? Does that give feminism a right to condemn them, pity them, or “fight” on their behalf? I’m honestly not sure, so if anyone can help me out…
I also agree that the problem never went away. There is NO solution to it because it is made so that women will never be who they are "supposed" to be. The second women liberate themselves from one type of opression, there will be another one on the way for them. It seems like an endless cycle that women will never be totally free from. I think alot of the women who were fighting in the 60's were fighting for themselves, and yes it did seem to be the majority but it's obvious that there are many non-feminist women still out there who would've preffered things to stay the way they were. That's the problem with movements, in order to be powerful they have to be inclusive and exclusive at the same time. The only way to get your voice heard is to be the largest and loudest group. The radical women back then were obviously willing to sacrifice the voices of other content women for thier cause.
Very recently i saw something sitting on a friend's table, an advertising strategy aimed at women who do have careers and also have children. It was interesting, it was mainly about Quick-Prep foods so they dont' have to feel bad about not spending enough time with their children. This has within it the idea that women will feel bad, and that they should feel bad if they do not spend enough time with their children because they have a career, so a way to deal with this "problem" is to buy already prepared meals in order to spend more "quality" time with their families.
Post a Comment