Posted under: childhood, Gender, women's history
In case you haven’t clicked the page “Lessons for Girls” on the top, left side of the home page of Historiann, check it out, because we had several worthy additions over the past week. I want to highlight one contribution in particular, You don’t have to be a mom, by Squadratomagico.
The barriers in place before a girl who decides she does not want to become a mom are formidable. . . . Coming to terms with the fact that one does not want to be a mom, like one’s mom, can be a difficult psychological maneuver — particularly since the weight of cultural pressures are strongly against this choice. And once a girl or woman decides that she prefers not to have children, she must defend herself over and over and over again. I can say from lifelong experience that no one believes a girl who claims not to want to be a mom. It’s very frustrating when perfect strangers presume to know one’s innermost desires without even asking! As a child, I recall adults asking my brother what he wanted to be when he grew up, then turning to me and declaring, “I know what you want to be: a MOMMY!” And when I denied this desire, I have always been told, with a patronizing “what-a-silly-girl!” smile, “Oh, you’ll change your mind!” I was told I would change my mind when I grew up; then I was told I would change my mind when I met the right man; then, that I would change my mind when I settled down; that I would change my mind overnight when my “biological clock” suddenly started ticking; that I would change my mind when my friends had babies; even that I would change my mind after I had tenure. When confident assertions of my hidden maternal nature proved inadequate, the appeals to conscience began. I was told that I must have children for the sake of my future old age, for the sake of the human race, for the sake of perpetuating progressive values, for the sake of passing on my own intelligent genes (this last from my mom).
. . . . . . . . . . . .Indeed, for girls the mom imperative is the central element of the broader heteronormative expectations of our culture. The authorized script for girls, as they mature into women, is that their best achievements in life inevitably will lie in the familial and domestic spheres. We are told over and over again by the Self-Appointed Obligatory Maternity Propaganda Brigade (SAOMPB) that, whatever else a woman may accomplish, her truest fulfillment derives from bearing and nurturing children. Such statements are incredibly demeaning: they denigrate any accomplishments a woman may value aside from reproduction, and restrict women’s sphere of meaningful activity to a purely biological realm. Interestingly, segments of the culture that normally exist in tension with one another, happily collude in the gauzy idealization of maternity. The Christian right presents motherhood as women’s divinely-ordained role, while the spiritual left exalts it in equally essentialist, earth-mother-goddess-creatrix terms. Maternity is even more important than heterosexual romance, in our prevailing narrative of female self-worth: how many times have we read and heard that love for one’s children is superior to, and stronger than, romantic love for one’s partner?* That you will never really understand love until you hold your own child in your arms?**. . . . . . . . . . . .*Some readers may recall the flap over the “Modern Love” column in the NYTimes, penned by Ayelet Waldman, in which she confessed that she loved her husband more than her children: the invective this admission elicited from readers was horrifying and insane.**The corollary to this, of course, is that a woman like myself does not, indeed, by definition cannot understand the true nature of love.
Aside from the weird insistence on the part of many mothers that everyone else must succumb to motherhood or else, the thing that bugs me the most is the sanctimony and false piety that’s pushed about motherhood. Can’t we have a sense of humor about it, and can’t mothers admit once in a while to non-mothers that motherhood frequently imperils women’s physical and mental health, or even that their children drive them nuts sometimes? (Bavardess makes this point in the comments.) This is perhaps why one of Squadrato’s throwaway lines pleased me the most: “I regard children the same way I regard any age group: some kids are cool, others are a$$holes.” Any former children among us know this to be true–why can’t we admit this any more now that we’re adults? (A preschool teacher I know shocked me recently when she confided that one of her charges was “an extremely manipulative child.” Good on her, I thought!)
Tenured Radical on 17 May 2009 at 9:17 am #
Great post. And of course, it used to be the case that being a lesbian exempted you from the Mommy Campaign, but no longer, thanks to the “gay and lesbian families are just like other families” folks, who have persuaded all lesbian couples that it is their duty to overpopulate the world as well. Furthermore, the artificial insemination technology people have become so expert at producing babies at obscenely late ages (with health risks to women that we have yet to come to terms with) means that tortuous conversations about how it is still not too late continue into one’s mid forties.
The idea that squads of childless lesbians and gay men are necessary to a feminist society, which I firmly believe, has never been adequately developed in my view, and perhaps this is something that queer and childless straight folk could bond over more generally. Girls need some example of what it can mean to truly put your own interests ahead of what other people want, and parents who don’t actually want to replicate the family values campaign need some help in resisting heterosexist, child-privileging propaganda
Janice on 17 May 2009 at 9:42 am #
I loved that lesson, indeed, all of them. Even though I’m a mother, that was my choice and I went into it with eyes wide — understanding that this would rock my world for good and ill.
It’s the hardest work I’ve done but that doesn’t bestow some great virtue on me for choosing to be a parent — it’s just the way my life worked out as a result of the choices that we made. Raising children’s certainly not for everyone, despite the immense pressure on women to embrace motherhood.
I wince when I see very young women romanticize the idea of motherhood as some sure-fire way of fulfilling themselves and finding unconditional love. *boggles* Being a parent when one is unprepared is disastrous, especially for women, yet so many continue to promote this as the uber-fulfilling female destiny (One Size Fits All). And children are not, as any thoughtful observer knows, a font of unconditional love!
As you and Squadratomagico note, nobody’s telling men that they have to OMG!Now find their fulfillment in parenting. But women? All the time, baby. All the time!
ej on 17 May 2009 at 10:16 am #
I find it fascinating that there is still this presumption in our society that all women are expected to give themselves to others, and that that is the route to fulfillment. The notion that not having children is the selfish act is illogical. Most of the time, the reasons why people have children are the selfish ones. There is nothing more narcissistic than wanting an extension of oneself. But few people think of it that way. And don’t even get me started on mothers who want to maintain a professional identity. Talk about selfish, right?
I think the problem is that most people like to think that the choices they make are the right ones, so when someone makes a different choice, they see it lack of affirmation, and criticize.
GayProf on 17 May 2009 at 10:39 am #
I am frequently disturbed by the bizarre obsession with children in this nation and fully agree with Tenured Radical (even gay men are pressured these days to have kids). It has also surprised me that not having children isn’t considered a legitimate choice on its own, even among some women who identify as feminist.
mary on 17 May 2009 at 10:41 am #
I think this is a great post. However, I would add that motherhood is a cultural mandate for all married heterosexual women. Women who choose to be single mothers and can care for them without a male partner are often considered selfish or masculine or whatever. It seems no one can win here.
mary on 17 May 2009 at 10:42 am #
That should say care for children.
Anastasia on 17 May 2009 at 11:25 am #
sure, our culture insists on motherhood for married heterosexual women…and then it treats them like shit for never getting it right. posts like this, sentences like this: “Aside from the weird insistence on the part of many mothers that everyone else must succumb to motherhood or else” and this: “Can’t we have a sense of humor about it, and can’t mothers admit once in a while to non-mothers that motherhood frequently imperils women’s physical and mental health, or even that their children drive them nuts sometimes?” are part of that discourse. You’re complaining because not only is the culture pressuring you to reproduce, mothers aren’t getting their attitude to your childlessness right.
It’s shit all around for women and this…this is not helping.
Digger on 17 May 2009 at 1:07 pm #
I think the “gays and lesbians are families too” is a reaction to the Right framing their anti-gay message as protecting “Family Values.” Instead of a civil/human rights issue, it became a family rights issue; specifically, a nuclear family rights issue (“We’re just like you! We have family values! Only both parents are the same gender! But look! Our kids are just as smart and well adjusted as yours!”) We let the other side set the terms of the battle, and here we are.
There’s definitely been a shift in the expectation of gays and lesbians having kids. When I first came out, my mom lamented that I’d never give her grandkids. Then, about 10 years ago or so, the pressure was on. I feel it very strongly at work and other places that I don’t fit in because I don’t have kids. Like I’m defective or something. It’s very uncomfortably weird.
Mid-40′s is nothing anymore for having kids… GoogleNews this morning fed me headlines of a 66-year old in the U.K. who’s pregnant.
Notorious Ph.D. on 17 May 2009 at 1:59 pm #
Count me among the childless by choice happy spinster aunties of the world. Count me among those who think they can do better things for children by taking the love & support that would have gone to my own and lending it out to children of friends and relations when a little more help is needed from time to time. And count me among those who want to throw things every time I face incredulity or patronization from some (not all!) would-be and current moms who don’t understand why I don’t want my own.
Bavardess on 17 May 2009 at 3:28 pm #
Digger and Tenured Radical – I think you both make great points about the unrealistic glorification of motherhood being part of the broader conservative ‘family values’ discourse.
“Girls need some example of what it can mean to truly put your own interests ahead of what other people want, and parents who don’t actually want to replicate the family values campaign need some help in resisting heterosexist, child-privileging propaganda” – oh yeah!
Liz2 on 17 May 2009 at 4:37 pm #
There are so many good points raised, but what struck me was how much “having children” is also about reaffirming masculinity and how many men say they WANT children but then don’t do diddly to accomodate the said children into their lives. My Dad gets props from other men for having 5 kids (two wives) like it’s some kind of contest (and it is) that is played out over women’s bodies. Yet, (and for the record I love my Dad and get along very well with him) but the man works 60+/week and did very little to help take care of those five kids, especially when they were young.
squadratomagico on 17 May 2009 at 5:05 pm #
Hi — thanks for the link, Historiann! (I would have checked in with thanks sooner, but I was away for the weekend.)
Historiann on 17 May 2009 at 5:19 pm #
“Anastasia,” your comment isn’t productive and doesn’t engage in conversation with any of the points raised. Please review the comments policy. You’re only welcome to comment here if you want to engage in a conversation instead of using profanity and just saying “nyaaaahhhh!”
I’m sure all of the non-mothers who have commented here would be fascinated to hear how they should be talking about their own experiences!
Historiann on 17 May 2009 at 7:00 pm #
Re: gay parenthood. Wasn’t it the ever-quotable John Waters who once said that the one compensation for being gay–in the face of the harrassment, abuse, social approbrium, family ostsracization–was that one didn’t have to be a parent? He too laments the compulsory family life that younger gays are pursuing. I remember hearing a hillarious interview with him a few years ago on the radio, in which he talked about his “son” “Bob,” who was an ugly doll that he put on his mantelpiece and made the centerpiece of his big Xmas party in Baltimore, emblazoning “Bob” on the invitations, etc.
Too bad, because if you could choose, wouldn’t you want John Waters as your dad? (Or at least as your crazy uncle who said things no one else dared to?) I used to have a gay great uncle like that (outrageous, although not quite JW outrageous), and I really miss him.
All of which is to say that the discourses that Squadrato and others (here and in the orignial conversation at Squadratomagico) flatten our vision of family, and of who counts in it, and who’s important in the raising of children. When we focus too much on vertical relations, instead of horizontal or diagonal relations, what do we miss, both in our lives and in our readings and understandings of history? This was of course the main points of Wayne Bodle’s excellent contribution on Mary Wollstonecraft a few weeks ago.
Dr. Crazy on 17 May 2009 at 7:11 pm #
Just FYI – If Anastasia’s who I think she is, she’s a regular commenter at my place and I doubt she meant to be trolly. (Not that you weren’t well within your rights to respond with the link to the comments policy, or to respond as you did. I just thought it was worth noting that I don’t think, if it is the person I’m thinking of, that the comment came from a malicious – or even an un-feminist – place.)
At the end of the day, I don’t think Anastasia’s comment was entirely wrong: women get it coming and going – whether they conform to heteronormative regimes for womanhood (i.e., chastity, motherhood, whatever) or whether they don’t. That said, conforming, or appearing to conform or attempting to conform or even just *wanting* to conform, produces a certain kind of privilege, even if one never *can* quite get it right. Complicit participation in heteronormativity – whether one is gay/straight, male/female, gets it right/doesn’t get it right- carries with it a certain amount of authority. I think that perhaps this is one of the reasons it’s so difficult to write about having children in a neutral way unless qualifies what they write with phrases such as “as a mother,” “as a father,” or “as a person who desperately wants children.” One doesn’t speak from that position of authority. (And that is regardless of whether one is actually a parent or whether one does want to become a parent.)
I’ll say this: people respond a whole lot better to the fact that I don’t have children if I offer an explanation – “haven’t met the right guy,” “it hasn’t been the right time,” “I’ve been focusing on my career” – than if I offer no explanation at all. That, as far as I can tell, is all about the compulsion to participate in a heteronormative economy. As long as I try to justify the fact that I don’t have kids, I’m safe. If I don’t, well, then, not so much.
Oh, and on the whole issue of queer folks being pressured about kids, marriage, etc. I talk a lot about this in one of the classes that I teach, and I’ve got a day where I privately think of what we cover as “heteronormativity: not just for straight people.”
Mamie on 17 May 2009 at 7:48 pm #
Am I going off-topic if I pose a question about student mothers? After more than a decade at Small Urban U., I am still utterly astonished by the number of single undergraduate women in their late teens and early twenties who are muddling through college while working, raising a couple of toddlers, and living with their parents. I usually learn about the children when a student comes in with a note from the emergency room where she was up all night with her baby and missed class or couldn’t finish her paper.
I try to be supportive, and find ways to be flexible–because, good grief, these women NEED their education, and they are sometimes very serious about getting it. But there are SO many of them. My question is, why? Is this part of the same obligatory maternity pattern? Do they choose to have babies at 16 or 17 because that affirms some important part of their identity? Or do these women really not know about contraception? (I understand why abortion is not an option for most. I also understand that some consider contraception a sin–but last I checked, the same religions that frown on contraception also have a thing about fornication. So I say, if you’re gonna sin, at least sin BIG. But no one’s asking me.)
Dr. Crazy on 17 May 2009 at 8:13 pm #
Mamie, as a person who I think has a lot of students similar to yours, FWIW, I don’t necessarily think that there was a conscious choice beforehand about CHOOSING to become a mother AT A PRECISE TIME because it was central to their identities. I think do think, however, that many of these women (young and returning students who got married at 18 and are now returning to school) do internalize the idea that “being a mother is the best thing you’ll ever do” (note the switch between being and doing there) and that it’s unthinkable that one would choose *not* to be a mother, or to postpone being a mother through a conscious choice to be vigilant about contraceptives, in order to take care of one’s own other ambitions first. (A lot of my students are positively shocked that I’m 34 and I’ve never been married and I’ve not had a child. Apparently, I’m a wizened old hag, or a hater of men and babies and motherhood. Who knew?)
Those students, in my experience, typically do have parents who are very supportive of the motherhood identity (sometimes more than they are supportive of their daughters’ educational pursuits), and these parents often indicate that it’s somehow “wrong” for daughters to put their ambitions before commitments to family and/or children. I don’t think that these women don’t “know about contraception,” but I do think that they face a lot of pressure not to pursue their own ambitions that don’t involve family, which can lead to inconsistent use of contraception, because it’s more important to have a boyfriend (for example), or to stay close to home, or whatever, than it is to advocate for (actively), or even to protect (passively), one’s own future.
I’ll also say that these seem to be similar defining characteristics of those elementary-school friends of mine who ended up being teen mothers (a fair number, I went to an inner-city school). So no, I don’t think that it’s about women not knowing about contraception or, necessarily, about making a conscious choice (though some may). I think for most it’s probably more subtle and circumstantial than those two either-or options.
squadratomagico on 17 May 2009 at 9:39 pm #
Um, if Anastasia isn’t a troll, then perhaps she’s simply obtuse. Her comment was an explicit attempt to shut down discussion (e.g., “this… this is not helpful”) and thus falls under the category of rude and obnoxious. If she is indeed a well-intentioned person, then I hope she will attempt to be more open-minded towards different points of view than her own in future.
Susan on 17 May 2009 at 9:46 pm #
Thanks, Dr. Crazy, for your comment on Anastasia’s reaction. She’s not totally off: part of sexism is that women get it coming and going. But I see very different reactions when I say “I have three grown stepsons” than when I say I have no children. It doesn’t matter that I didn’t raise them, they give me some legitimacy. As does being married.
Historiann on 17 May 2009 at 10:05 pm #
Neither Squadrato’s original post, nor mine, nor anyone anyone here said that having children was morally wrong, or criticized people who are parents simply because they chose to have children. Squadrato’s point, and that of many commenters, is that they *have* been lectured to and condescended to for living their lives as they choose.
I reserve the right to ban anyone at any time for any reason–because it’s my blog! Tra-la.
Dr. Crazy on 17 May 2009 at 10:08 pm #
Squadro – I get what you’re saying, and I suspect I basically agree with your position.
The converse of “Anastasia’s” gripe – that “mothers” are somehow being policed in their responses to non-mothers, and thus non-mothers are bad – is ultimately as screwed up as a position in which to be a non-mother is “good” and “altruistic” and “feminist,” whereas being a mother is being a tool of the patriarchy and being EVIL.
What I suspect is that *most* women (or at least most feminists) don’t fall into either of those camps. I suspect (or hope) that most women, or at least most feminists, would agree that motherhood doesn’t confer womanhood, nor does childlessness. The point is that one should get to CHOOSE, at the end of the day. And really, if one is an autonomous subject with agency, one shouldn’t have to justify that choice. One should have the authority to make that choice whatever one chooses.
Susan on 17 May 2009 at 10:12 pm #
Oh, I’ve had an interesting experience related to the “Lessons for Girls” — not Squadrato’s, but the general sense of them to trust yourself and do what is right for yourself. (Maybe that is the uber lesson?) I recently said “No” to a major campus committee, because it came with lots of responsibility and no course relief. I already carry major administrative responsibilities that come with no time off. I was asked why, and I said I had these other jobs, and there was not enough time in the day. So in the past few days a number of men have come up to me and said how glad they are that I said no, because we have to establish that some jobs come with a reduction in teaching load. Who knew that saying “no” could make you more popular!
Historiann on 17 May 2009 at 10:14 pm #
To Mamie’s and Dr. Crazy’s point about young mothers: it’s hard to generalize, of course. When I was teenager in the 1980s, there was no question but that a girl who was college-bound would have had an abortion. I don’t know of any happening in my high school, but I do know that no one I knew who was going to college had a child before that. There just weren’t that many pregnancies in my high school at all. It’s good that people don’t think of having a child as putting an end to their educational ambitions.
Certainly times have changed–I think that many parents are much more tolerant of having a child and grandchild live in with them, while permitting the child to pursue her education. This is for the good, as Mamie says–but I have to say: my parents never spelled it out, but I just knew that if I got “in trouble” that it would have been my problem to solve, and that there would have been no free babysitting while I went to the prom and then college. Gen Y children have been much more indulged than us Gen X kids–we were the original “latchkey kids,” the “divorce generation,” etc.–whereas today’s college students are “blessed” with helicopter parents. I see the child-grandchild/ren living in with the elder generation as just another manifestation of the helicopter parent. In many ways the closeness is laudable–but in other ways, perhaps not so much.
Historiann on 17 May 2009 at 10:18 pm #
Susan–great story! I’ve had experiences like that. I think if you have a clear rationale for saying “no”–such as, “I already carry major administrative responsibilities that come with no time off,” that really helps. (It’s also just good to let people know you have boundaries.) It also helps if you’re like Susan, and people can see how hard you work and how effective you are, so they know you’re not just whistling Dixie…
onebadbint on 18 May 2009 at 7:04 am #
I guess I don’t argue with this advice wrt the general populace. Within academia, though, it seems unnecessary. Condescending, even. As though academic women aren’t already thinking hard about if and when to have children, who will immediately write you off if you do, whether that group will include colleagues on P&T, PIs, advisers, potential collaborators, how long it will be possible to conceal the pregnancy. I’m not surprised that this topic dominated at a seemingly safe space like Sq’s meeting, and I think it shows not that the women see babies as a life default, but that they know exactly how stigmatized it is. (I say seemingly safe space, because, then they get criticized afterwards for bringing up the possibility of children, much less actually having one!).
Which is my long-winded way of echoing that yeah, you get it from both sides whatever decision you make, and there’s reason for a post like that to elicit defensive reactions. Also — that line about mothers needing to have more of a sense of humor? Right, because women just need to learn to take a joke. Never heard that one before.
Historiann on 18 May 2009 at 7:22 am #
Who said mothers need “to have more of a sense of humor?” I didn’t say that. I said that the broader culture should drop the false piety of motherhood. This false piety degrades the work that mothers do (by mystifying it and enclosing it within the confines of domesticity), and it is used as a weapon against non-conforming non-mothers like Squadrato.
When I wrote, “can’t we have a sense of humor about [motherhood],” I meant all of us, not just those who have children.
It’s funny: I’ve written much, much more often about motherhood and mothers in academia, see here too, while this is the first post I’ve written to highlight the experiences of women who are not mothers. But it’s this thread in which people claim to feel under attack? That would seem to underscore Squadrato’s point very nicely that women who don’t have children are somehow seen as a threat to those who do, a threat that must be managed, contained, and neutralized by reproduction.
Dr. Crazy on 18 May 2009 at 7:30 am #
H – you’re so fighting the good fight on this one, but there’s a reason why I never write about motherhood on my blog in any real way, and this is it. (I made the mistake of writing about it once when I first started blogging, and there was a huge blow-up all over the internet in which childless types were told that other people’s children were our responsibility because children are the future, that we were selfish and WRONG and NOT FEMINIST, etc.)
And you know, that’s exactly why this “Lesson for Girls” is so important. Because seriously: if you try to talk about motherhood or think about it in ways that fight the false piety, you more often than not get punished for that. I kind of feel like these people who are getting so defensive about this lesson should get it together to do their own lesson about becoming a mother…. Except that would actually require engaging in the conversation that all of these lessons generate – a conversation that ultimately is about interrogating those things that we often take for granted – so I’m not holding my breath.
Historiann on 18 May 2009 at 7:33 am #
Right on, Dr. C.
I hope the links I’ve provided above will contextualize this conversation.
Erica on 18 May 2009 at 8:20 am #
Even once you prove your womanhood by having a child, you only get a brief respite before the nagging starts again — when are you going to have another one? Simultaneously, I was also:
+ admonished not to have the babies too close together (ironic combination of “hurry up and wait”),
+ offered sympathy about post-partum sex, “so different since you’re, y’know, STRETCHED,” *
+ offered a book describing optimal sexual positions to get a boy so I’d have “a set” and wouldn’t “need to try for three”.
And then you have a second child, AND IT STILL DOESN’T STOP (despite the fact that I now have “a set”), they want to know when the third is on its way. I doubt anybody reproduces just to shut up the relatives, but seriously, can’t they give it a rest already? (I once visited a cousin who’d just had her first daughter, and my aunt was already asking for another grandchild — the poor kid was only two weeks old, and already not new enough.) I am totally in favor of everyone just never bringing up the subject of children like it’s as mundane as “how’s the weather” — it would benefit both parents and non-parents.
* It is horrifying just how prurient people are when discussing pregnancy, birth, and childrearing. Why would my speculum size be any of your business?
squadratomagico on 18 May 2009 at 8:26 am #
As I wrote at the beginning of the piece on my blog, I’ve long been reluctant to post on this topic because the reaction is always so drearily predictable.
Historiann on 18 May 2009 at 8:29 am #
Erica–yes, apparently if you have only one child, you’re engaging in child abuse by depriving your singleton of a sibling. (Never mind all of those people who can’t stand their siblings, and/or can’t rely on them for help with aging parents in any case.) And then as you say, even when you’re compliant and have “one of each” (boy and girl), then you need to have more because you’re so good at it, etc.
I know that people mean it as a compliment (sometimes, maybe usually) that they think you’re an acceptable person to reproduce–but the TMI aspect of everything you releate really is something, isn’t it?
Erica on 18 May 2009 at 8:41 am #
Can I ask something — if the topic of kids should happen to come up (like when I’m stuck with my brother-in-law’s fiancee with whom I have very little in common and so very little to talk about), is it better to say “are you thinking of having any kids” rather than “when are you going to have kids”, or to simply avoid the topic altogether? While I like to think I would have appreciated the distinction, I am not sure if that appreciation might have been overwhelmed by disgust at having the same question asked YET AGAIN.
onebadbint on 18 May 2009 at 8:49 am #
H, as a long-time reader I do know, from the previous posts that you link to, that you’re on the side of the angels and well aware of the difficulties of mothers and all women in the academy. I figured that all of your readers, and Squadrato’s too, were probably already aware of this. Therefore not in need of an admonition that we don’t need to have children, because believe me, we know (as Janice says upthread, eyes are wide open about this, and about ensuing lifestyle changes and potential penalties).
That’s all I meant to say. I feel fine about the lesson if I take it as a sort of curriculum plan for implementing with female students, friends and relatives. Because like I said in my first post, I do agree that the message needs to be heard outside this blog circle, in society at large.
squadratomagico on 18 May 2009 at 8:53 am #
@ Erica: definitely avoid “when.” Chances are that she does want kids (since most people do), and your wording won’t make a difference. But in case she is in that minority of us who don’t want them, asking if she is considering children is far better than simply assuming she wants them, and it’s only a question of timing.
And if she says she’s not planning on kids, move on — don;t interrogate her ass to why not.
squadratomagico on 18 May 2009 at 9:00 am #
@ onebadbint: Just a point of clarification here. I wrote the original post specifically for Historiann’s series, “Lessons for Girls” — not “Lessons for PhD’s” or “Lessons for Academic Women.” The specific exercise was to envision alternative ways of being for girls, to reflect on our life experiences as a way of empowering those who are not yet mature. Obviously, most people who read it will be adult women, and likely academics as well, but the whole series is a set of thought experiments intended to provoke discussion about the specific ways girls are groomed into femininity in our culture.
Erica on 18 May 2009 at 9:23 am #
“don’t interrogate her ass to why not” — Our shared mother-in-law will be covering THAT quite thoroughly, I’m sure. Poor thing
Maybe I can conspire with her to come up with a list of diversionary tactics if Nana starts up…
Thanks for the answer!
Historiann on 18 May 2009 at 9:39 am #
Squadrato–did you mean “ass” or “as?” It kind of works either way…
onebadbint–thanks for your further clarification.
squadratomagico on 18 May 2009 at 9:49 am #
I meant “as” — the S on my keyboard sticks.
Erica on 18 May 2009 at 9:52 am #
OH… well yeah it does work either way.
Indyanna on 19 May 2009 at 10:17 am #
Without intending to, presumably, the Supreme Court just weighed in (however obliquely) on some parts of the subject of this thread, by ruling that employers are entitled to pay perpetually smaller pensions to women who used pregnancy leaves before Congress got around, in 1979, to plugging that particular loophole in the pension system. Presumably staying home to have a big bouncing five pound hang-nail would incur none of this penalty. Justice Ginsberg’s reported jibe(s) in dissent at her con-freres were interesting. This one would seem to invite legislative remediation along the lines of the Ledbetter resolution.
Kar on 22 May 2009 at 7:43 am #
I am a mother of one, and I have been lucky to avoid lots of questions about when I’m “having another”. Although once in a while people will simply assume that I am planning on having another without knowing me at all! I’ve heard lines such as, “Wait until your second child…” Well, what if I don’t want another? I am an only child and sometimes I’ve been told that’s why I’m “weird”. As I was growing up I rarely wished for a brother or sister. I am quite happy with my situation. So why does my daughter require a sibling? Will it make her a better person? I just hate being told, or thinking, that I *ought* to have another child *just* for my current one.