Double X Double Slam: Women, Mothers Marginalized More Than Ever?

Yesterday, I read this article, "Raising the Baby Question," at The Nation. I was steamed in a way I haven't been in a long time. Here comes this young (24 year old) reporter who writes an article with outrageous claims. Nona Willis Aronowitz, the writer, posits this theory: feminist writers ignore mother and family issues, and mother and family writers ignore feminist issues.

She cites a few blogs, books, and Web sites, which she claims proves her point.

Even though they don't, really, and she ignores a huge, active population of women who are feminist and family writers who are actively not just writing about but are also doing something about feminism, politics, and family issues.

Case in point: the MOMocrats.

We are merely one among many, including: WomenCount, BlogHer, MomsRising, PunditMom, Political Voices of Women, The Girl Revolution, the late great Moms Speak Up, and more, including the many individuals who contribute their voices at group sites and personal sites. Just check out the Just Posts, for example, to see a lengthy list of women writers---some mothers, some not---who are delving into issues related to feminism, politics, social justice, life as a woman, life as a mother, and more. I became involved with the MOMocrats, in fact, because I was blogging so often about these topics at my personal blog, and had, through that, connected with both the Just Posts and Political Voices of Women.

Nevertheless, Willis Aronowitz claims that, "There's a palpable disconnect between these two worlds [mother and feminist], and it's starting to worry me."

Actually, that's dead wrong.

I don't think Willis Aronowitz means to be totally incorrect in an article on a national site.

I think she just missed a lot of relevant information.

Her side point, the one she ought to have pursued, is dead on, though, "Most feminist mom organizations and websites like Sistas on the Rise or Hip Mama are local and grassroots, often excluded from discussions of feminism in the national media."

Too true.

However, national media---collapsing under its own auspice currently---isn't the end all be all, and grassroots organizations have a wonderful outreach.

Can it be bigger? Should it be bigger? Yes.

That doesn't affect, however, how empowering and effecting it feels when a fellow mother at my daughter's school catches me one morning to say, "My friends and I, we hate the news, but oh we love MOMocrats, read it every day!"

At MOMocrats, we cover news, national news, local news, policy news, economic news, all sorts of news, including news of interest to women, such as female candidates, family leave, health care, the environment, and more.

But those aren't women's issues. Those are all of us issues, my friends, it's just that women happen to care more about them and tend to get involved to do something to improve those situations.

More than just writing and talking about feminism, though, MOMocrats (and others) are acting within the mother, political activist sphere. We may not have been offered a national stage, so we built our own. That's what women do. Now we are out there, doing.

That's activism.

Women who are mothers are not, as Willis Aronowitz erroneously implies, too busy to be activists. She disproves her own implication, in fact, when she concedes that mom blogging is a revolutionary act, as is political mom blogging and feminist mom blogging. It's true that financially struggling mothers, single mothers, and so forth may have to sacrifice some forms of activism, but what Willis Aronowitz doesn't seem to grasp is that motherhood is, in and of itself, activism and revolutionary.

Those single mothers may not have the time or venue to grab a national stage and talk all about feminism, but when they raise their children according to their personal values, they produce a new generation that will be more voices talking about family issues such as health care, maternity leave, and support for parents. When my friend, a single parent who is financially struggling, explains the challenges she faces getting health care for her children, she is being an activist, even though it's me who calls our state senator and demands action.

In fact, all mothers are, in some way, activists.Their contribution just might be invisible or overlooked---this happens way too often, as Willis Aronowitz's article proves.

As an activist who is politically involved, I have also found that society is not quite as kid unfriendly as parents might fear. Our co-founder and editor, Glennia Campbell recently said, "My kid got dragged around to so many political events last year he thinks Al Franken is a relative of ours and that we have Obama on speed-dial."

That's funny. It's also funny that in a school report about "what mom and dad do" my seven year old wrote, "Dads go to work and moms go to political meetings."

It's funny, but important to consider, too, that my children have been to Town Halls and sat through meetings with Congressmen, have attended political debates, accompanied me to vote, started the first day of school with Dad instead of me because I was in Denver at the national convention, been to local political groups, kissed me good night before I left to attend a 10 p.m. meeting at a bar, and more.

That's activism. That's a palpable connection between mothering and feminism.

It's also a palpable connection between mothering, fathering and feminism.

Willis Aronowitz makes a good point when she said, ". . .dads need to be part of the conversation. Whether or not fathers live with their families, they are routinely excluded from parenting and discussions surrounding it. Nearly every woman I interviewed for this piece seems convinced that once we garner a critical mass of men, parenting issues will be taken more seriously. The more allies mothers have, the more mainstream these issues will become."

Absolutely, but we need to not discount that many men are involved, and they are frequently included in parenting and discussions surrounding it. Can there be more? Should there be more? Absolutely.

But in my family, my efforts are possible because of my husband, and his part and support. I've interviewed countless candidates---men too---who are very devoted to issues affecting the status of families in the United States.

We don't always agree, though, about what should be done. My elected members of Congress, for example, don't think parents deserve leave, family leave protections, or health care reform. Well, I have to exclude Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from that last one, because she is a heavy advocate for health care reform.

However, let's not confuse disagreement and "outside my sphere" for "not happening." That's the biggest issue I have with Willis Aronowitz's article: it seems that she thinks because she's not in it, it's not happening, and because it's not everywhere, it's not effective, and because moms are busy and not involved in large numbers in the same model of activism that she is, they are not doing anything.

Wrong.

Still, Aronowitz gets a lot right: the national media and culture at large does need to pay more attention and give more respect to women and mothers and all that they do. We do need to provide a better framework that is more supportive of parents.

Willis Aronowitz has a clue.

But like I told my little girl while we read the Nancy Drew mysteries together recently, "A clue is one piece of the puzzle. You have to seek out more clues of what is, rather than what you assume. Then you can see the whole picture."

Talk outside your own sphere.

Then we can talk about what is, rather than what someone erroneously thinks isn't.

Mothers are activists. Parenting is part of the feminist discussion. Feminism is a huge part of the parenting discussion.

The real question is why young feminists who aren't yet mothers aren't turning to and listening to the older women, many of whom are mothers. Is it a misapplication of severing the apron strings? Or is it the arrogance that moms aren't anything beyond a vessel to raise children, the arrogant assumption the young and childless so frequently make? The assumption, also very arrogant and ignorant, that mom becomes the woman's identity, and that mothering isn't anything beyond serving? Is it that childish inability to comprehend a parent as anything beyond a parent? Is it the typical lack of understanding we all have before becoming parents about how very revolutionary parenting is?

In addition to that question---which will probably never change because you need to get older to realize how very much you do not know, and you need to become a parent to truly understand all that it involves---the real issue we need to discuss is along the lines of something Ann Friedman questioned today, "Is the niche-ification of the Internet amplifying or ghettoizing women's voices?"

I think what we really need to discuss---what Willis Aronowitz is actually picking up on, and is a very valid worry---is whether the niche-ification of women, mothers, women's issues, parenting issues and feminism is amplifying or ghettoizing women's voices.

Like I said earlier, women weren't offered a stage, so we built our own. Has this given us a better venue? Or has it marginalized us more?

h/t to Cyn3matic for the pointer to the Ann Friedman article.

Comments

[Andrea]

"motherhood is, in and of itself, activism and revolutionary"

I disagree with this. Plenty of moms are reactionary and conservative and see their spheres of influence as centering entirely on the home. Motherhood certainly can be activism and revolutionary, but it doesn't have to be. Any more than being female generally is activism and revolutionary.

I remember when I was younger, before Frances, how badly I misunderstood what moms were trying to tell me; and it may be that Willis Aronowitz suffers the same problem. I was not capable of understanding motherhood before I became a mother, and I think that's true of a lot of women. The whole universe of parenthood is invisible to a lot of people until they become parents, not because they don't care but because tehy lack a frame of reference.

But most importantly, does it matter? If Willis Aronowitz doesn't see the important work you and I are doing, does it diminish that work at all? Does it make that work less effective or less important? It's like when some conservative writers argue that environmentalists are all socialists who want to nationalize everything and we have some secret agenda--well, it's ridiculous and insulting, sure. But I don't care, frankly, so long as the victories are being won. And I'd rather work on those victories than waste precious time and resources countering their ridiculous arguments.

So: what's the consequence of her argument? In what way does the movement suffer if she doesn't see it?

[Julie Pippert]

Oh, but Andrea, even if they see their sphere of influence as home centric, it is still an act. I disagree, but that doesn't mean it's not something. All mothers are raising kids who will become members of and influence society in some way. Many of them will vote, and support of oppose particular movements. My side, your side, this side, that side, tomato, tomahto, it's activism. That's my bottom line.

Then, keep in mind, I buy the Gaia Hypothesis.

Yes, my theory is the lack of a frame of reference--as like you, as I said in my article, this is simply how it is. The trouble is (and this answers your final question) that she takes that lack of comprehension and applies it to the world on a national main media stage as an assertion that there is an overall lack in society, not simply a lack of framer of reference on her part.

That's the real disconnect.

We are doing, we are succeeding, but we have enough obstacles. It harms our efforts to have a national media reporter completely ignore them and say they don't exist. It undermines us with a big population we have trouble reaching anyway. We need more allies, as she herself says. The article doesn't reach out and help build our allies.

[Deb on the Rocks]

The article in the Nation is all over the place, but a few things jump out at me. Mostly it is hard to take her concerns seriously because, as Julie shows, Willis Aronowitz's assessment of mother's voices in the blogosphere is lacking. To use Cool Moms Picks as an example is slanted, as if Momocrats said "We are worried about young feminist voices because the bloggers at luckymag.com aren't talking about reproductive rights."

Which points to the big problem with how hard it is to define topics on the web, home a certain type of blogging is misunderstood to represent the whole community of moms online, and a host of other media problems, some of which we need to work on, and some that are bigger than all of us.

The weird undercurrent of the article is that moms sell out their ideals and co-opt into complacency with children, and are no longer fighting for young women's rights to maternity leave? She comes across as so naive about the gains made in the last decade as well as to who is organizing progress now. Learning the system enables activits to change policy, and a ton of work by those of us who learned the system has transformed "feminist" issues like childcare into a community and workforce issue that is successfully receiving a huge chunk of stimulus money that will help families, children, industry and communities. Not waving a feminist political banner doesn't mean that the actions are philosophically aligned with feminist goals.

Dang it. Are we the old guard already?

[Julie Pippert]

Oh, Deb, I am fairly sure I'm old guard. I have had to check "36-54" age group for a while now and more than that, I am THAT MUCH older than 24 lol. I'm good with that, though, because older is wiser, by which I mean I know just how much I do not know. :)

"The weird undercurrent of the article is that moms sell out their ideals and co-opt into complacency with children, and are no longer fighting for young women's rights to maternity leave? She comes across as so naive about the gains made in the last decade as well as to who is organizing progress now." That's exactly what I get, and is why I asked why these young women aren't looking to the older, more experienced women who have laid so much groundwork.

Your points about slanted examples, presumption that moms---through no fault of their poor victimized own---slip into complacency, missed gains, and old guard power brokers are spot on.

Thanks for your fab comment!

Now a Q: your second paragraph...you talk about blog genres and representation. So do you think we've marginalized ourselves, or advanced our voices? I know it's not that simple---I think we've empowered ourselves more through preaching to the choir, to some degree, and I do think it's caught some ears. Ann Friedman made some good points in her article, though.

[Nona Willis Aronowitz]

Julie and MOMocrats: see my extra thoughts on the issue on Feministing (since the Nation doesn't allow back-and-forth on their site): http://community.feministing.com/2009/05/parenting-blogs-and-feminism.html

To be clear, I didn't think that my local, grassroots point was a side point at all! It's very central to my piece, and in fact emphasizes my overarching point (which you emphasize): not that mothers aren't activists, feminists, or political, but that the ones that ARE are not in the spotlight. The way you characterize my piece--"feminist writers ignore mother and family issues, and mother and family writers ignore feminist issues"--is, to use your word, wrong. Very wrong. Especially since I interview a handle of women that refute that exact claim, like Veronica, Leticia, and Charlie, all of whom I characterize as activists. My point is the media and the national conversation makes no connection between the two.

Your assessment of my tagline, "There's a palpable disconnect between these two worlds [mother and feminist], and it's starting to worry me," is also wrong. It's not a disconnect that I see between mothers and feminists (see earlier point about my interviewees). It's a disconnect between mainstream feminist activism and parenting activism, which you point out yourself.

I didn't include the MOMocrats because they were a political group rather than expressly feminist. Maybe that that was silly of me, because as you mention, these two concepts are hopelessly linked. But don't assume I'm an ignorant, thoughtless 24-year-old because of that. And you're right that I proved my own disconnect point by not mentioning the Momocrats or Moms Rising. I'm glad you posted on the Nation's site. I do think this kind of dialogue is necessary and useful. But I still think you have to keep this kind of writing constructive. We are on the same side, you know.

Finally, I agree that being a mom may be revolutionary, but it's not framed that way in our country, in our media, and in our societal structure. That's the point that most people, feminists or not, miss. And that, as I point out in my piece, is what needs to change most of all.

[Nona Willis Aronowitz]

P.S. I specifically posted on Feministing because I valued your point about my omissions rendering activist moms even less visible to young feminists, and I wanted to share your points with their readers. This is a perfect opportunity to comment on this issue yourselves in a venue where young women like me will be sure to see it.

[Julie Pippert]

Nona,

Thanks for commenting and continuing the discussion.

You say my take on your thesis is wrong, and yet, in reading your article again, this is how you present your central idea, or what appears to be your central idea (lifted directly, in order, from your second paragraph):

Point 1: "mother- and family-related blogs, social networking sites and activist groups rarely associate themselves with mainstream feminism"

Point 2: "Most feminist mom organizations and websites like Sistas on the Rise or Hip Mama are local and grassroots, often excluded from discussions of feminism in the national media." <---As I said above, ITA, True.

Point 3: The profusion of mostly white, mostly middle-class mom bloggers. . . don't promote their work as feminist or even activist.

You then assert: There's a palpable disconnect between these two worlds, and it's starting to worry me.

Can you see how that really does seem to say that you believe moms aren't feminists or activists, or are hiding it under a blanket (which society requires to shield their tender eyes from the sight of our mommyhood)?

You go on to say young feminists have no interest in mommy issues, "It's more likely because most young feminists in the national conversation don't have kids, and people are less likely to fight for issues that don't affect their everyday life."

I strongly disagree with those points, because evidence such as a number of mom+feminist+activist+political+all-age-group sites including MOMocrats have lead me to believe in quite a different reality.

As to this point:

"Finally, I agree that being a mom may be revolutionary, but it's not framed that way in our country, in our media, and in our societal structure. That's the point that most people, feminists or not, miss. And that, as I point out in my piece, is what needs to change most of all."

Amen sistah.

Amen.

[Nona Willis Aronowitz]

Duly noted.

On another note, I'm genuinely curious as to whether there are any childless women involved in organizations like MOMocrats or MomsRising. If not, can we be? This controversy has only made me want to be involved more, but I'm not sure even how to proceed if these orgs are so clearly "by moms for moms." I really want there to be a tangible space for parenting-activist allies, rather than just stirring up disagreements like this and having them settle a few days later. Anybody?

[Lawyer Mama]

Nona - I don't think anyone from MOMocrats or MomsRising would turn childless women away. In fact, I think it was Cyn wrote a piece during the election about who is a "MOMocrat" and her conclusion (and the conclusion of most of us) is that all of us are. Even if you aren't a mom, you have one or you hope to be one.

We do see things through a slightly different lens once we become parents. Like it or not, it happens. But that doesn't mean that we can't relate to young, childless women. Hell, we've all been there at one point. We welcome you into our conversation, Nona. Please, make it your own as well.

[Julie Pippert]

Nona,

MOMocrats obviously tends to skew towards moms, but by no means do we exclude for moms only. We include DADocrats and FRIENDocrats, too. I have a Facebook category called COOLocrats. :) We've got all sorts of honorary MOMocrats.

The ultimate idea, in my mind, and I think in most MOMocrat minds, is that we want people to understand where moms are coming from, where we hope to go, and how we are going to drive the national conversation to get there (to be pithy).

As Steph said, your frame of reference does shift once you become a parent (mom or dad).

As I said, and as you said, the key is to build our allies---which we have done, including all sorts, such as even single, childless men!---and so if you ask me? You aren't just welcome here, but welcome aboard!

[hibikir]

You complain about how inane the original article is, with its broad generalizations, and then you post this:

In addition to that question---which will probably never change because you need to get older to realize how very much you do not know, and you need to become a parent to truly understand all that it involves

Which is, IMHO, just as much a broad generalization, belittling entire categories of people.

You see, I am in my 30s, and I am a parent. When I was a teen, I had a pretty good idea of how hard parenting really was, and knew a lot more than what many bigoted adults claimed. You know what is one of the major reasons many teens don't know about the hardships that parenthood brings? Because instead of getting good, quality dialog with their parents about actual parenting, they get preaching, quickly followed by comments not unlike the one you made above. 'You can't argue with me because you are not a parent yet!' is a dialectical cop-out, which does nothing but create a divide. And then, years from now, your sons and daughters might end up learning the same trick, just like the sons of alcoholics tend to become alcoholics themselves.

Break the circle of laziness and disrespect, and engage those younger and less experienced as equals. You might be surprised at how some of their ideas might be much better than what you learned from tradition, and they might help you grow.

[Julie Pippert]

Hibikir,

My admission that I know I don't know everything is arrogant? My confession that youth doesn't know everything and a sphere is not omniscient, and saying that one doesn't really know what parenting will be like until one becomes a parent is a cop-out?

That just doesn't compute for me.

The point and intention IS, in saying that, that people need to reach outside their own sphere to learn that there is more. My objection to the author was that she didn't reach out to the very people who are doing what she claims doesn't exist.

The implication never at all was "you can't argue." My article specifically ends with a call to discussion.

I find your comment very ironic.

[cynematic]

I wonder if much of the disconnect between childfree young feminists and mother-feminists who blog (or not) can be attributed to academic feminism?

Anecdote: I was once at a party held by a friend of mine who is a university professor. She is a feminist, as were the tenured women professors in the humanities at her party. I happened to speak to two of these professors who were guests, who proceeded to inform me in one breath that they sent their children to public charter schools, and in the next breath disparaged the "stay at home mommies" who started the charter school their children attended.

I haven't done this personally myself, but I do know starting a charter school from scratch is NO SIMPLE TASK. I was astonished that these feminist professors in the Ivory Tower held the same women who toiled to create the school their children went to in such low esteem--just because they were "stay at home mommies."

Now if that's the disconnect among some academic feminists who ARE THEMSELVES MOTHERS and who teach young twenty-something feminists, then it's no wonder feminist moms who blog or are otherwise outside the academy seem so alien to young, childfree feminists.

The lack of imagination, or recognition of work that doesn't appear to be feminist AS feminist, is something that Ivory Tower feminisms are perpetuating among young feminists. IMNSHO.

[mj]

hi - thanks! i'm not sure if i'm welcome here - but i'd like to try - i'm an almost 50 (gasp - it will happen to you!) lawyer/now law prof/older mom (12 & 8) living (unfortunately, in a very wealthy, republican suburb) - my question is whether you know of any blogs that address women whose "real life" is so very non-integrated, and/or whether this one would be helpful to an old mom. . .. (either way, i'll be back!)

[Molly]

cynematic: I think you're right that there's often a VERY problematic attitude toward mothers who don't work outside the home--and more broadly toward having babies, parenting, mothering, etc. in any way--in academic culture, which sometimes frames academic feminism in a wonky way. The good news: a lot of us (meaning, academic feminists with children) are working against those conceptual limits in our own teaching and lives. My pregnancy, baby, breastfeeding, childcare issues, equal co-parenting, etc. are visible to my students; I don't go on and on about them, but they're not parts of me that I feel I need to hide in the classroom. And I'm working on childbirth-centered feminist scholarship. It's not mainstream, but (at least in my feminist classroom) it's happening.

[cynematic]

Hi MJ & Molly!

MJ, of course you're welcome here. Do a search for PunditMom and SocalMom's writings both here and at their personal blogs. They also write for 50-something Moms Blog: http://www.svmomblog.typepad.com/50somethingmoms/. Chances are you'll find some resonance in the material there as an older mom of youngish children. What's also nice about MOMocrats as a feminist virtual space for politically progressive moms is that it CAN be that refuge for people otherwise isolated in very homogeneous conservative communities.

Molly--maybe the problem of mind/body (mapped across the male=culture/female=nature binary, and across male/female professors' careers) is also exacerbated at elite research universities. As a recovering academic myself (English, UC Berkeley), I found the pressure to be fluent in continental theory intense, because the more fluent you were, the more likely employable you were at a similarly elite institution.

But did I think post-Freudian psychoanalytic feminisms were at all helpful in theorizing a women of color feminism or radical feminist mothering? Two words: Hell. No.

Academic feminism can widen the mind/body divide and make for a very "heady"--downright impractical--idea of what feminism is. Or, it can be useful and applied. IMHO this seems to happen more in the social sciences, where there's an engagement with "field research" and a feedback loop with real life.

But I think the humanities is a tough arena for integrating theory and practice. Activism is not often enough taken as the social text for interpretation.

Molly, I'm glad you're finding ways to bring your feminist life to your classroom and hopefully your department. Good to know things are changing.

Come back any time.

[Buy Avodart]

Forget those painful days of benign prostate hypertrophy. Avodart is an unbeaten drug in this disease. You will definitely feel great after making use of this drug. So don’t waste your time and get ready to experience the magic of this drug.