The latest issue of The Atlantic has a cover story (How Serfdom Saved the Women's Movement") on the role of motherhood and nannies. There is also an interesting interview with the article's author, Caitlin Flanagan, provides some insightful thoughts on the issue. Flanagan, a working mom who has a nanny for her child, was asked to comment on the 'professional woman's dilemma” of sacrificing her own happiness for the sake of the children:
The hot new thing in feminism these days is maternal feminism. It was launched at a big conference at Barnard College a couple of years ago, attended by some of the major feminists of our time, including Ann Crittenden and Sylvia Ann Hewitt. The crux of their argument is that mothering—as opposed to fathering, or parenting, or care giving—is something unique, and of inestimable value. That the bond between a mother and her children is different from any other kind of human bond, and that it should be revered and respected. You won't get an argument from me about that. But the second that one implies that—in part owing to this unique and sacred bond—the hard work of raising children belongs more to women than to men, these same women start squealing like stuck pigs. They can't have it both ways: either mothers are uniquely designed for the care and protection of children, or they aren't. End of story.Ironically, the people in this country who most revere that mother-and-child bond are fundamentalist Christians, who make huge sacrifices so that moms can stay home with their children. Many of them home-school their children, because they're convinced that mothers are the best teachers of children and that the public school system in America immerses kids in cultures and values antithetical to the kind of reverence for family life—and especially for motherhood—that so many Christians have. The maternal feminists might like to learn more about the fundamentalist Christian life style; it is one with the highest possible regard for motherhood, and it might be appealing to them.
Flanagan brings up an interesting point. Biblical Christianity has the potential to make significant contributions in the debates about the role of motherhood. Unfortunately, instead of a 'theology of the feminine” we have 'feminist theologies” that rarely have much to offer beyond a rehashing of secular feminist ideas in religious language. When religious conservatives do offer up advice on the issue it tends to be rooted more in a nostalgic longing for ‘50's era Donna Reed-type motherhood rather than in Biblical theology.
What we need is serious, intellectually rigorous, and biblical thinking applied to this area of practical theology. Our best minds, and I'm not just referring to academics but to our public microintellectuals in the blogosphere as well, need to spend more time in reflection and contemplation on 'feminist” issues. Few areas of life have more impact on our culture and our civilization as do motherhood yet we treat it as a topic unworthy for serious thinkers. From Plato to Dewey, education has been one of the perennial themes of philosophers. But how many have written treatises on motherhood?
We need critical thinkers, male as well as female, who will rise up and help produce, promote, and implement a new theology of maternal feminism. Motherhood is the very foundation of the "haven in a heartless world" and should be the primary focus of our attention when it comes to changing the culture. If Christians are to have an impact on the world we must first learn how we can properly impact the home.
(Link via: World magazine blog)
Update: Thanks to Sara Butler for pointing out the Atlantic had posted the "Serfdom" story. By the way, I should point out that Butler's blog, Diotima, is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in feminist issues.
1
Joe,
Interesting thoughts. I don't think motherhood has been neglected quite as much as you seem to (just off the top of my head, Plato certainly seemed determined to do away with it, Rousseau talked about it somewhat extensively in Emile), but I agree that we could always stand to think about it more. There might be some more specific precedent for what you'd like to see happen in 19th century religious thought. In her extremely influential book, The Bonds of Womandhood, feminist historian Nancy Cott spends some time arguing that evangelical ministers were key in articulating the 19th century ideology of womanhood, motherhood and domesticity. You will almost certainly take issue with her analysis, but her sources might be of interest.
Oh, and the whole Flanagan piece is available on the Atlantic's website now.
posted on 02.19.2004 5:27 PM2
I'm not sure the term "feminism" is compatible with the maternal ideal, as it has come to be known.
I'm actually working on a theory of feminism (the ugly, godless, manhating kind) as the root cause of both the dismal state of marriage and divorce, and the gay liberation -- and now marriage movement. If i were half as smart as you are Joe, i'd already have this one in the bag.
But just as we are prepared to grant some civil benefits to gay couples -- so long as it aint called "marriage", we can apply many of the benefits of feminism to the very Godly institution of motherhood. But it'll be tough to sell under that name...
posted on 02.20.2004 7:01 AM3
I think the problem with Flanagan's argument is that it takes things too far, and in so doing, presents something of a false dilemma. It implies that to be a serious mother, and to do the brunt of the mothering, one must be a stay at home mom. That is, when you become a mother, you must be a mother to the exclusion of all else. And I don't buy that.
When I grew up, my mother and father both worked. And they worked their schedules so that one of the two of them was almost always home. My father worked days, and my mother worked nights. This proves (to me anyway) that a mother doesn't have to give up her role as the primary caregiver to also have a career (my mother is in retail sales, and is very successful at it).
The primary fallout from this was that my father also had to take an active role in the caregiving process, including the diaper changes and whotnot. The Horror!
Having a career and parenting do not need to be mutually exclusive endeavors. The parenting should of course be the top priority, but that doesn't mean it has to be the only one.
The other logical extension of Flanagan's argument that gives me pause is actually based on my disagreement with one of the premises: that mothers are somehow "better equipped" to raise children than fathers are. I'll grant that this is true for the first year or so, but once the child has been weaned, it's no longer the case. A father is every bit as capable of raising a toddler as a mother (although I'm very traditional insofar as believing that it's best for the child to have as much family around as possible, rather than becoming codependent upon just one person).
The part that gives me pause is the implication that not only must one parent stay at home with the child, but that the parent must be the mother. I've known people who were the children of stay-at-home Dads, and are none the worse for wear.
The most important thing for a child is to have loving, caring parents. Their gender and their career choices really don't matter.
posted on 02.20.2004 12:28 PM4
Ok, it's friday afternoon so I will be brief.
One of the strange results of popular/common feminism is the devaluation of the feminine. Although women can be as good as men (or better as some coffee mugs imply) it is only by excelling in traditionally masculine traits. (Earning power, success in sports, holding public positions.) In looking at the "wife advice" columns of the 50's (I saw a copy of one recently but I can't remmber where) it seems that the solution to being treated as second class citizens ("Remember your husband's concerns are more important than your own") was to continue to devalue "feminine traits" and allow the women to move into the "masculine world".
For an example of how the same actions can be valued if it is a "job" task but not if it is "just a wife" see http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/partner-in-the-dynamic-of-creation/02.htm
(Scroll down to Homemaking and Housekeeping.)
What needs to happen to have true "liberty and equality" is for a paradigm shift to occur where both masucline and feminine traits are valued equally.
This is not an untouched area. There are quite a few former "modern feminists" who have become religious jews who have written on the paradigm shift and on religious feminism (which might be called maternal feminism.)
Shimona Tzukernik has some good tapes on this, and there are books out there. Let me know if you want more references and pointers. I probably even have some of the books at home.
Leah
posted on 02.20.2004 3:00 PM5
I'm personally tired of so-called "feminists" telling me what I need to believe in order to be a decent woman, like the pro-choice movement.
To me, supporting abortion goes against every maternal instinct a woman has.