Please join Marc Chimes and Fem2.0 for Sunday’s Twittercast on Mommyism, Daddyism and Feminism to answer: Does appealing to progressive objectives by using our respective parenting roles undermine the feminist ideal of no pre-determined societal roles?
Read on for Marc’s explanation of his topic and what he wants to explore. Bring your questions, comments and thoughts to the Twittercast, where he’ll be guest-moderating! (Follow him on Twitter here.)
–
"I was born a poor black child…”
No, wait, that’s from “The Jerk”…
“I was a male mommy for thirteen years…”
Due to a quirk of capitalism, I had the good fortune to be a full-time, stay-at-home, single dad.
A Co-op parent, PTA President, prayers every night, shelved books at the school library, baked cookies for birthdays, soccer mom, mommy. Not quite a Mom Mafia mommy, but still.
My daughter’s an A’s & B’s junior at Sidwell now, a crew captain, a 2000 SAT fashionista, so it didn’t seem to ruin her any…
And now I want to talk about mommying and feminism.
I went to the “Moms Coming Together for Equality” break-out session. I had a lot to say. I didn’t say anything.
I listened, instead.
And I heard my opinions expressed. After the initial presentations, a very estimable leader of a well-respected “women’s” organization stood up and told the panel (I’m paraphrasing, but pretty closely):
“We don’t ever refer to any of our activities by gender. We never consider ourselves to be anything other than gender-neutral. Why would you characterize yourselves by child-rearing? In our society ‘mommy’ is considered a diminutive, slightly demeaning term. The only person who should call you a ‘mommy’ is your child…”
To which several of the panelists replied (I’m paraphrasing, but essentially),
“Well, we are aware of that school of thought, but basically we believe that in our society ‘mommying’ has a certain cachet, like puppies and baby seals, and if we can use that to advance our causes, such as sick leave and ‘maternity’ leave, then we’ll use mommying to its best advantage.”
Now to me, that’s playing the gender card. I mean, it may be a useful short-term strategy, but ultimately, it’s gonna leave you segregated and separate but “equal.”
To me, it seems clear. If you define feminism as the proposition that there should be no broad-based societal roles defined by gender, then it seems to me that “mommying” is inherently a subversion of feminism.
I mean, really, isn’t our challenge to live each day as if the Equal Rights Amendment was the law of the land? And how can we do that if we insist on defining societal roles by gender – if we insist on defining ourselves by a set of actions and characteristics that we cling to as gender-specific and “special.” As in, “mommying — isn’t that special…”
Here’s what I think happens when we insist on defining our political or social roles using terms like “mommying” or “daddying”:
- You ghetto-ize yourselves by setting up a notion that there is a domain that is “yours” by right of gender. Do we really want women to "go there," or, should I say, "stay there?"
- You infantilize your arguments – literally. By stating that you are gender-based stewards of infants and not full-powered citizens acting on behalf of what’s best for all of society, you are treated as a “special” interest group.
- Obviously, by setting out an area of human endeavor as “yours” by right or dint of gender, you are clearly stating that these issues and actions are not “theirs” – and giving men a pass and another chance to miss fully realizing and acting on their responsibilities. Why ward off men with Mommies Only drinking fountains?
- Worst of all, this totally plays into a conceptual framework of patriarchalism that sets up women as “naturally” nurturing, eternally maternal, an "unspoiled" resource always available for exploitation. It reinforces the stereotype that female parents are mommies, and not fully in this "real" world.
Come on, hasn’t everyone struggling with the ‘Working Mom" dilemma had enough of this struggle? It’s vestigial. For the sake of everyone we’ve got to move past "mommying."
My daughter and her peers are uncomfortable with the term "feminist," in part because of the false dichotomies the "ideology" seems to present. Mommying is definitely one of them, in that ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t" sort of way. Her peers seem to have more faith in their ability to share opportunities and obligations without resorting to gender-based distinctions.
Leonard Cohen said “…the great struggles pass away like smoke, and then we are left with the real struggle that takes place in the living-room and in the bed-room… But you know it’s true when they say that there won’t be free men until there are free women.”
I’m waiting to be freed. Like Gov. McKeithen used to say… “won’t ya help me?”
Marc Chimes is a writer/producer. He came to DC in 1981 as a political consultant working with Matt Reese. Over the years he’s worked in grassroots lobbying, geodemographics, issues management, political and public affairs TV production, PR and Web 2.0 endeavors. He’s also been a PTA President, Room Parent, Parent Peer-to-Peer Chairman, Green Acres School Governance Task force member and Sidwell Parents Association participant.
Gosh, Marc – you are hitting the bullseye in the middle of the Mommy Wars – you know, women at home with kids versus women with kids who go to work. For one side, “Mommy” is a badge of honor which can be used to dig at those who “don’t live up to it”; for the other side, while not exactly a badge of shame, it implies boring, underachieving lives. This particular gender label is very judgmental and value-laden and speaks to the schizophrenia women feel about their roles.
Your daughter is lucky to have had so much of you, though of course you realize you’ve set an almost impossibly high bar — how easy will it be for her to find a guy willing and able to fill all the roles you’ve chosen to fill?
Dem be Big Shoes.
Isn’t this the problem, that women have settled for so little from men as fathers, and demanded too much of themselves as mothers? Because we’re still living at the end of the “you cook/I hunt” paradigm, no one’s happy. We as a culture have to get over it — as I said, we’ve got to live as if the Equal Rights Amendment were the law of the land, and as if we agree that nurturing is gender neutral in both obligation and estimation.
The only role I’ve filled is being there for my daughter — yes, in extraordinary ways, but no, I’ve only been there in the sense of knowing who she is and paying attention to her needs. A third of families with kids have no father present. More than half of African American families with kids do not know who the biological father of the children might be. Is that the right bar? Just showing up and filling the shoes is a big step. Just being there in terms of your child’s physical, social and mental needs is big — but is that some big accomplishment, no, it should be table stakes for all of us as parents.
Fascinating – I’m sorry I don’t think I’m going to be able to be awake for tonight’s session. This is an intriguing idea, along the lines of obliterating other labels – I have a thing against labels in general, but not always.
I would still want to go back to what W.C. Field says – it’s not what they call you, it’s what you answer to. I understand the argument you’re making Marc and I think it’s a good one, one with which I agree for the most part. I guess picking and choosing which constructs to help obliterate because of their net negative impact isn’t always easy for me – there are too many that need to be destroyed.
As the moderator of the panel, I didn’t agree with the the idea of using out “mommyhood” as a means to an end. I believe it informs our opinions and perhaps makes us advocates in ways we would not have been otherwise, but I don’t agree with using our motherhood (or fatherhood) per se as a way to move things forward.
Of course, having said that, I find it fascinating that so much of the media discounts what mothers have to say on politics. We are lumped together as soccer moms or security moms, and viewed as women who think only as a monolith and as people who don’t, or can’t, form political views outside of out mothering identities.
Perhaps I missed something but I think I have located all Twittercast posts. I don’t see a coherent discussion. I question the decision to make a last minute announcement that this discussion would feature a “special guest” who appears to have an explicit anti-mother’s movement agenda. I can’t find any evidence that the Twittercast addressed the description and with the “special guest” post as (I suppose) the discussion starting point, I can’t imagine how it could have.
I agree feminism should never exclude men and that men are critical members of parenting discussions. But feminist discussions dominated by the opinions of angry men? How would WOC feel if I (a white woman) were chosen to be the special guest at a Twittercast on parenting and race, and the Chat would focus on my experience feeling excluded from discussions of oppression. I have an experience of oppression – but it is not the experience of a WOC. I would like to feel welcome in discussions with WOC about feminism, mothering, oppression, but what I am reading of the Tweetchat displays an angry “special guest” saying “motherhood is not a legitimate political identity.” If I were to walk into a discussion and say “WOC is not a legitimate political identity,” I’d have my head ripped off and I’d deserve it.
If someone can explain to me what that Twittercast, and the choice to frame it that way, was all about, I would really appreciate it.
These things really resonated with me:
“how easy will it be for her to find a guy willing and able to fill all the roles you’ve chosen to fill?”
Y’know — I find women find men just like their fathers. Your daughter will be looking for just the right thing in her relationships.
“…the great struggles pass away like smoke, and then we are left with the real struggle that takes place in the living-room and in the bed-room then we are left with the real struggle that takes place in the living-room and in the bed-room…”
AMEN to that
“it’s not what they call you, it’s what you answer to”
AMEN to that, too
Now – my limited take. I’m a full-time 12-hour-a-day working mom with a stay-at-home husband. I still do many of the “mommy” things — baking cupcakes, shelving library books, making sure the kids do their homework. My husband doesn’t seem to be able to dust or do anything related to school.
I’ve never felt part of the “mommy” wars. Other than being jealous of women who actually get to spend time with their children, I have no comment on that over-hyped B.S. I do remember organizing and working the face painting booth at the PTA spring fair one year and having one DAD tell me “well, my wife and I really have loved to have helped out, but SOME OF US HAVE TO WORK.” Oh brother, I thought, I’ll just leave that one alone.
Any — as for self-identifying something “mommy” in order to win — as a political communicator, I say ‘GO FOR IT’ call it whatever you need to call it to get sh*t done..
But, wait, Marc’s a political communicator, too. Hmmmm. Odd that we have these different perspectives.
And, in response to the last comment about how this was structured and planned … all of Fem2pt0 is being done thru volunteer labor. So — Ms. JAKEARYEHMARCUS — volunteer to run a different TwitterCast on the same topic and publicize it.
Dear JakeAryehMarcus,
Sigh.
Yes, I was surprised at how aggressive I was on our discussion, as well. However, I was not angry — why should I be? I was argumentative, and as a former debater and political consultant, the difference is substantial. Besides, we’re on the same team, right? My contentiousness came directly from two things: the lack of coherence to the discussion that you pointed out, which I think in part stems from the Twittercast technology, and I was reacting strongly to the lack of any agreement to the terms of the discussion. I believe my blog was very straightforward and clear — I stated my premise and my conclusions. I don’t believe there was any enmity expressed. I apologize if it was suddenly sprung on an unsuspecting universe, but I wrote it when asked. As for being a “special guest,” well, it wasn’t my nomenclature, and I guess you’re right — special, compared to what?
Was our feminist discussion dominated by angry men? I am so sorry. All of me/us. I/we certainly didn’t feel dominant. Does the record reflect such?
Were there discussions of oppression? I never said anything about oppression.
I was speaking in the context of feminism. Feminism 2.0. And I defined the term feminism in my blog in what I thought was a non-controversial manner, a definition taken straight out of the book “Introducing Feminism.” I then had participants tell me that definition was “wrong.” No reason, no alternative definition — just wrong. And then our group expressed sentiments that stated that there are many feminisms, and that even feminists can’t decide what feminism is…
Well, sheesh, what are we doing here? What kind of movement — political or otherwise — can’t define itself or agree to a definition of terms? How can any dialectic be undertaken? Exasperated, yes — angry, no. Based on last night’s Twittercast, I can’t imagine feminism having the slightest political or cultural relevance. It’s everything and nothing.
And I want to be very very clear — I have looked at every entry I posted, and I cannot find any posting where I stated “motherhood is not a legitimate political identity.” Those quotation marks are unearned and unfair.
The Twittercast was promoted as a question, a debate, remember — the topic title ended in a question mark. For purposes of dialog, my explicit contention was that the identity of motherhood is a very questionable FEMINIST identity. Because feminism maintains, I premised, that there are no societal roles determined by gender — that we have equal rights and responsibilities to our society for every obligation and every opportunity. And that to maintain special rights of interest, of issue ownership, of identity — based on gender — had specific political and cultural repercussions. And that mommyism in the service of feminist objectives was an inherently contradictory logical stance. To me, it is contra-feminist. That was my posited inquiry, my “choice to frame it that way,” or rather, the question under discussion.
I was invited to Twittercast about this, I didn’t demand to have this discussion… I was willing to be persuaded I was wrong, and, in fact, I was told I was wrong — not in ‘no uncertain terms’ — rather in NO terms. Just wrong. Topic premise can’t be defined.
I wasn’t angry. I don’t have anything against motherhood. I’m on “the women’s team.” I love my mother. I have been a mother; and that, in a nutshell, is precisely my point. Does saying that make you object, make you angry? Does it make you want to speak up about pregnancy and gestation and lactation? Do you feel that the issues of fertility, fecundity, infant mortality, pre-natal care, abortion, family leave and sick leave are exclusively motherhood issues? Do you believe men can’t care about or act with equal passion and capacity about these issues? As Gloria Pan pointed out, “Women’s issues traditionally center around family, and women’s roles in family are mother and wife…Hard to separate.” But it is my understanding that Feminism 2.0 says that these are NOT just women’s issues, that these issues are NOT the roles that define women, that we now have a society wherein both men and women can be mother or father, husband and/or wife. Am I wrong about this?
“Wrong!”
Easy to say, isn’t it? Well, please make a reasoned refutation. That was what I thought our Twittercast was about — a reasoned inquiry about feminism and gender roles.
I am sorry if I appeared to you as angry. It was not my intent. I am sorry if you felt dominated. I am sorry if you thought I was speaking about oppression — I am not oppressed nor do I wish to oppress, nor was that my issue. I am sorry if you felt that I was questioning your personal or political legitimacy somehow — that wouldn’t make me a very good “special guest,” would it?
I hope I’ve addressed your concerns and explained what that Twittercast was all about, at least as it was envisioned. And I hope that this discussion will remain open-minded and probative, for as one participant stated, “none of us has any idea how to get to “freedom for all”…it’s a process…we’re engaged in that process right now.” And, as someone else in our discussion wisely pointed out, “there’s no monopoly on ways to freedom for all. This topic’s too big for a Twittercast!”
Marc — thanks for offering continued dialogue on the blog and for being an invited guest on the TwitterCast.
All — as my earlier rather vague comment pointed out, this entire process is driven by volunteers. So please attribute any apparent lack of disorganization to that simple fact. Come back to the blog often so that you are not “blindsided” by TwitterCast discussions. They happen every Sunday; a blog piece is posted beforehand on the topic — often at the last minute. If you feel you can do it better, please step up and volunteer to help, speak, write, whatever. We welcome you.
In the true spirit of Web 2.0 we welcome any and all discussions.
Now — to Mark’s point about not being a relevant force — we still have managed (despite our lack of cohesion and definition) to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act this year; the Paycheck Fairness Act should be on the floor of Congress in April. Lilly’s bill simply returned us to the protections all people (gender neutral language) enjoyed BEFORE the unfortunate U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. Paycheck Fairness actually gives us all the legal tools to redress pay inequities. So, we’re not EXACTLY a toothless tiger.
And, btw, Mark makes a perfect example — you don’t have to be a woman to be a mother. Although he is, by definition, a father, he has been both mother and father to his daughter. I know other wonderful men who have been everything to their children when their birth mothers have been unable or unwilling to step up. Just as I myself often feel like the “father” — the provider, the disciplinarian, etc. So perhaps our gender definitions for these terms are badly outdated.
All that said, being the horrible manipulative political communicator that I am, I vote for using mom, apple pie and whatever other messaging we need to use to achieve our political goals.
And here’s another quote that struck me (oddly) as appropriate for this thread:
Love is an act of sedition, a revolt against reason, an uprising in the body politic, a private mutiny. [SO CAST OFF OUR GENDER ROLES AND EMBRACE LOVE FOR OUR CHILDREN TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES]
- Diane Ackerman,
A Natural History of Love
@JakeAryehMarcus
The Twittercast was announced two weeks before it took place. Marc offered the topic to us for debate, and we asked him to host it in the Twittercast. He is right in saying that the ‘casts are meant to be a forum for discussion, which this one was, and the topic continues to be talked about — a positive result!
We would love to invite you to lead a Twittercast of your own sometime — if you’re interested, please contact us!