Anyone read Misconceptions: Truth, Lies, and the Unexpected on the Journey to Motherhood? I totally see the need for this kind of book and she seems to be making some really good points (I'm not done with it yet), but for some reason her perspective is really annoying the hell out of me. She keeps talking about how intellectuals don't appreciate mothers or mothering, but at the same time she was one of those very people at one time (and still seems to be showing attributes of it).
I consider myself to be a very strong feminist, perhaps even radical. I am a tough talker who doesn't put up with much, so in some ways I sound quite a bit like Ms. Wolf myself, at least in that regard. However, I am beginning to think that though as women we can do anything we want, it is unreasonable and quite selfish to expect to do it all. This may be totally new for me, and may sound a bit like some talking head from the Right, but I'm finding myself more and more with the feeling that you can choose to be a fast-talking career gal on the up and up OR a mother, or perhaps both consecutively, but NOT at the same time. I am beginning to think that if you have children, one parent should stay at home. Not just that everyone should have that option, but that one person absolutely must stay home with the children until they are of an age to be sent to school or what have you. I want to be able to respect that different familys' needs are different, but I'm really finding myself believing wholeheartedly, nay, knowing that staying home is best for the children. But all that's politics, and has little to do with the book and more to do with my general disdain for Ms. Wolf.
The thing that bugs me about this book is that even as she's outlining societal problems regarding respect for motherhood, she's talking about the loss of her identity and the transformation into one of "those women". Maybe it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, or maybe she's just be honest about the feelings she was having, but it bugs me to hear myself referred to as "one of those women" with such venom. And what she doesn't address is that this is the problem with the feminist movement, or at least the part of the feminist movement that she is so intimately connected with and that she holds in such high regard - this exclusion of so many women and the striving not for womanhood or a better definition of femaleness, but of for acceptance into a male world. Why would any woman want to be male? And why on earth should we call that feminism? We need to not embrace the male world, but create a new world entirely where feminity and all those things essentially female are celebrated and made room for. I think it's a far better goal for the "women's movement". And I'm not saying that this sort of thing isn't reached for, it is, but my problem lies in that here is this woman at the forefront of the movement, or at least very much in the public eye, who is not taking into consideration womanhood, to the exclusion of millions of women. And she's addressing preconceptions she held in her pre-motherhood days, and talking about the societal problems surrounding it, but not taking a fundamental look at the very institution she hails from. It's screwy.
She does make some really good points about childbirth in America, but none that haven't been made before, better. I do like that she takes frequent blows at What to Expect When You're Expecting as well. But all of this addressing of what should be a public concern is from this totally privileged standpoint that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. She does make some moves to acknowledge her own privilege, but it's really minimal.
One part that really bugged me is when she complains about there being no role models for her transition into motherhood. All the mothers she can think of that are aside from their motherhood the kind of women she regularly is attracted to, "the wild ones, the chaotic spirits" are all terrible mothers. I have oft considered myself to be a bit of a wild, chaotic spirit, and before motherhood feared for my children-to-be because of this. But once becoming a mother, I realized that that part of my life now has to be reigned in in order to become a great mother. I must refocus that energy, which I am doing and don't feel particularly mournful about. I mean, I get the whole loss of identity thing, I do, but this woman is just screaming so loudly about it with a complete lack of compassion for other types of women, or rather, "those" type of women. She keeps talking about how pathetic she feels in her new role, even as she is desperately in love with her child. I know there is not adequate support for women out there. I know that there are not sufficient choices or means to get to those choices. But the whole book, while valid, is at the same time really condescending. When she talks about working for a few hours and then loosing track of time and "missing a feeding" (which sounded it's own alarm bells in my feed-on-demand mind), I wanted to spit. She says that she's so guilty about her baby's hunger, but then also angry that she had to interrupt her writing. And that it wasn't just this one particular interruption, but that interruption was now her life. She says she could not win because she quit working at the most important moment for her work, but as a mother had "already stayed too long at the fair." We all know by now (I would hope) that the whole idea of "having it all" is a myth. You cannot have it all and retain your sanity. You cannot be a go-getting [insert career] and still be a great mother, unless you have some unique situation where work and childcare collude beautifully (which I understand does at times happen). But my new question is, why would you want to? Can't we, as feminists acknowledge finally that there are biological urges operating here that we must answer to? That there are indeed fundamental, yet incredibly valuable differences between the sexes? Can we not celebrate our evolutionary design to be mothers? Can't we embrace that and say that that is valuable, to the point where we can recognize the beauty of the powerful, sexual-mother goddess that is inherent in nature? We need goddesses in our culture. We need women who are neither the virgin or the whore, but both motherly and sexual. I hate to say that women belong in the home, because that's not what I think, per se. But I think that we have to choose our paths responsibly when they affect others.
Maybe she's just irritating me because I can't relate to her perspective, or I find it to be exceedingly selfish given her status. I just don't see how she can spend so much time complaining while at the same time wanting to be a part of her father's world so whole-heartedly - that former man's club of careers and money and intellectualism. It makes perfect sense to not be able to reconcile the two worlds. But again, why on earth would anyone want to? I'd give it up in a hearbeat to be a mother. And maybe I'd look back longlingly, just as she is doing, but I wouldn't try to claim that I could do both or that they two worlds belong anywhere near each other. Maybe having a brain in each world is what makes her sound so crazy to me.
I'm so sorry that I sound a bit over the edge myself. I know that I've probably gone a bit overboard and maybe overstated how I really feel. If someone wants to play Devil's advocate, please go right ahead and it will help me to better articulate what I feel. If you'd like to join me in bashing her however, please feel absolutely free to do that as well.
I consider myself to be a very strong feminist, perhaps even radical. I am a tough talker who doesn't put up with much, so in some ways I sound quite a bit like Ms. Wolf myself, at least in that regard. However, I am beginning to think that though as women we can do anything we want, it is unreasonable and quite selfish to expect to do it all. This may be totally new for me, and may sound a bit like some talking head from the Right, but I'm finding myself more and more with the feeling that you can choose to be a fast-talking career gal on the up and up OR a mother, or perhaps both consecutively, but NOT at the same time. I am beginning to think that if you have children, one parent should stay at home. Not just that everyone should have that option, but that one person absolutely must stay home with the children until they are of an age to be sent to school or what have you. I want to be able to respect that different familys' needs are different, but I'm really finding myself believing wholeheartedly, nay, knowing that staying home is best for the children. But all that's politics, and has little to do with the book and more to do with my general disdain for Ms. Wolf.
The thing that bugs me about this book is that even as she's outlining societal problems regarding respect for motherhood, she's talking about the loss of her identity and the transformation into one of "those women". Maybe it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, or maybe she's just be honest about the feelings she was having, but it bugs me to hear myself referred to as "one of those women" with such venom. And what she doesn't address is that this is the problem with the feminist movement, or at least the part of the feminist movement that she is so intimately connected with and that she holds in such high regard - this exclusion of so many women and the striving not for womanhood or a better definition of femaleness, but of for acceptance into a male world. Why would any woman want to be male? And why on earth should we call that feminism? We need to not embrace the male world, but create a new world entirely where feminity and all those things essentially female are celebrated and made room for. I think it's a far better goal for the "women's movement". And I'm not saying that this sort of thing isn't reached for, it is, but my problem lies in that here is this woman at the forefront of the movement, or at least very much in the public eye, who is not taking into consideration womanhood, to the exclusion of millions of women. And she's addressing preconceptions she held in her pre-motherhood days, and talking about the societal problems surrounding it, but not taking a fundamental look at the very institution she hails from. It's screwy.
She does make some really good points about childbirth in America, but none that haven't been made before, better. I do like that she takes frequent blows at What to Expect When You're Expecting as well. But all of this addressing of what should be a public concern is from this totally privileged standpoint that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. She does make some moves to acknowledge her own privilege, but it's really minimal.
One part that really bugged me is when she complains about there being no role models for her transition into motherhood. All the mothers she can think of that are aside from their motherhood the kind of women she regularly is attracted to, "the wild ones, the chaotic spirits" are all terrible mothers. I have oft considered myself to be a bit of a wild, chaotic spirit, and before motherhood feared for my children-to-be because of this. But once becoming a mother, I realized that that part of my life now has to be reigned in in order to become a great mother. I must refocus that energy, which I am doing and don't feel particularly mournful about. I mean, I get the whole loss of identity thing, I do, but this woman is just screaming so loudly about it with a complete lack of compassion for other types of women, or rather, "those" type of women. She keeps talking about how pathetic she feels in her new role, even as she is desperately in love with her child. I know there is not adequate support for women out there. I know that there are not sufficient choices or means to get to those choices. But the whole book, while valid, is at the same time really condescending. When she talks about working for a few hours and then loosing track of time and "missing a feeding" (which sounded it's own alarm bells in my feed-on-demand mind), I wanted to spit. She says that she's so guilty about her baby's hunger, but then also angry that she had to interrupt her writing. And that it wasn't just this one particular interruption, but that interruption was now her life. She says she could not win because she quit working at the most important moment for her work, but as a mother had "already stayed too long at the fair." We all know by now (I would hope) that the whole idea of "having it all" is a myth. You cannot have it all and retain your sanity. You cannot be a go-getting [insert career] and still be a great mother, unless you have some unique situation where work and childcare collude beautifully (which I understand does at times happen). But my new question is, why would you want to? Can't we, as feminists acknowledge finally that there are biological urges operating here that we must answer to? That there are indeed fundamental, yet incredibly valuable differences between the sexes? Can we not celebrate our evolutionary design to be mothers? Can't we embrace that and say that that is valuable, to the point where we can recognize the beauty of the powerful, sexual-mother goddess that is inherent in nature? We need goddesses in our culture. We need women who are neither the virgin or the whore, but both motherly and sexual. I hate to say that women belong in the home, because that's not what I think, per se. But I think that we have to choose our paths responsibly when they affect others.
Maybe she's just irritating me because I can't relate to her perspective, or I find it to be exceedingly selfish given her status. I just don't see how she can spend so much time complaining while at the same time wanting to be a part of her father's world so whole-heartedly - that former man's club of careers and money and intellectualism. It makes perfect sense to not be able to reconcile the two worlds. But again, why on earth would anyone want to? I'd give it up in a hearbeat to be a mother. And maybe I'd look back longlingly, just as she is doing, but I wouldn't try to claim that I could do both or that they two worlds belong anywhere near each other. Maybe having a brain in each world is what makes her sound so crazy to me.
I'm so sorry that I sound a bit over the edge myself. I know that I've probably gone a bit overboard and maybe overstated how I really feel. If someone wants to play Devil's advocate, please go right ahead and it will help me to better articulate what I feel. If you'd like to join me in bashing her however, please feel absolutely free to do that as well.
:
:Puke
: WHY?!?!?, let me tell you: I believe this to be the most "medically muckraking" book that they would actually read, IYKWIM.
