I've been thinking about what it means to be a mother a lot lately. Part of this stems from the fact that I am a mother, and I am about to become the mother of two. But it mostly stems from the media's obsession with celebrity mothers. I confess, I am no different. I love looking at pictures of babies and children, and I am quite happy to collude in the media's infringement upon celebrities' privacy by looking at pictures of Gwen Stefani and her boys or Heidi Klum and her brood.
Lately, though, I've noticed something that I bothers me, as a mother, a woman, and an academic. Many, many celebrity mothers are commenting that they've never been more fulfilled in their lives since they became mothers. They are overwhelmed by the love they feel for their children and feel more satisfied by motherhood than anything they've done professionally. Halle Berry and Michelle Monaghan are two examples of celebrity moms who have recently waxed poetic about motherhood.
On some level, I get what these women (and celebrity moms are by no means the only moms to express such feelings) are saying. I love Wild Man in a way that I have never loved another person. The love I feel for him is vastly different from the love I feel for C. I also take great pride and pleasure in my role as his mom. I love being with him, and I thoroughly enjoy watching him grow up and become his own person. In fact, my favorite thing about being a mom is watching him learn and grow and change, things that I often have very little to do with. That said, I find this tendency, which is so often exhibited by celebrity moms, to wax poetic about how profound and changing a mother's love can be a little disturbing. For me, it promotes the message (as do sites like People's Celebrity Baby Blog) that all women inherently desire to be mothers. Such stories tacitly remind women that they are, indeed, unfulfilled as women until they become mothers, and that really bothers me.
It bothers me because so many women become so wrapped up in what a mother is "supposed" to be that they forget who they are or who they want to be. My own mother had a huge crisis of identity when my sister and I moved out. She, a woman who had worked outside the home for years, had several hobbies, and a great relationship with my dad, didn't know what to do when she didn't have to be someone's "Mom" every single day. She became depressed and completely withdrew from life. She finally went to therapy and is now in a great place, but she has acheived that sense of calm, in part, because my brother still lives at home and likely will for the rest of his life (my brother is deaf, and while he is fully able to live on his own, he depends so much on my mom--and she on him--that he will likely never move out). She "mothers" him every day, so she has maintained the part of her identity that she feared losing.
It seems that the idea that nothing is so fulfilling as motherhood only perpetuates these kinds of identity-crises that many, many women experience. I wish we could revise this perception of motherhood a bit. Again, I find motherhood fulfilling--more fulfilling than lots of things I do--but I also find it hard, frustrating, tedious, and, dare I say it, at times boring. I find more work as fulfilling as motherhood, but I find it fulfilling in a completely different way. I wish more women would say just that: motherhood fulfills one part of me, but it does not complete me, any more than my work completes me. Both make me a more complete person, but neither mothering nor my work makes up the total of me.
Here is another unrelated, but tangential thought that has been running through my head.
A few years ago, author Ayelet Waldman appeared on Oprah, and she stated that she loved her husband more than she loved her four children. Waldman was publicly chastised for being a bad mother and recieved death threats for making these statements. Clearly, she was a "bad mother" because she loved someone more than her children. I was not a mother when Waldman made these statements, but even then, I felt that I understood them. I have since made similar statements to my family and friends, and most seem a bit taken aback until I explain myself. As I just said, I love Wild Man in a way that I do not love C, and I know I will love Z in a similar way. But, in a way, I love C more than I love Wild Man and more than I will love Z. Here's why: I see my time with Wild Man and Z as fixed, as finite, in some strange way. Yes, I will always be there mother and I will definitely always be there for them in every way possible, but they will not always need or want me to be a daily part of their lives. I firmly believe my primary job as a mom is to help my children be the best people they can be, and then, I have to let them go and discover the world for themselves. I want to be in my life forever, but I don't want them to be the center of my life forever. I think that is unhealthy and wouldn't allow them to be their own people on their own terms.
In contrast, I do plan to have C in my life forever. He and I have willingly joined our lives, and I am committed to sustaining this relationship for the long haul. By saying I love him more than my children, I am saying that this is the relationship that I value the most in my life. At some point, our kids are going to grow up and leave us, and at that moment, I don't want to look across the table and wonder "Who the hell is this person?" I figure I have 18 or 20 years with Wild Man and Z; I want to have a lifetime with C. For that to happen, I have to put our relationship first, and I think our kids will recognize and, ultimately, appreciate that.
6 comments:
A few thoughts...
First, let's exclude the situational aspects of the interviews with celebrities when they are asked questions about being a mother and they respond that they like being mothers. Because of the rhetorical constraints of the interview, the celebrities probably will not say much more than this. This may be a game of audience expectations.
Second, when you argue that you dislike when celebrities state "motherhood fulfills them" because it leads to certain normative conclusions about how "motherhood ought to be," you argue that we should replace one normative construct of motherhood with another. Instead of saying "motherhood ought to fulfill me," your normative constraint is that "motherhood is only one part of me." If someone disagrees that motherhood is only a part of a person and agrees that motherhood fulfills the person, your argument leads to a conclusion that people walk around with a false consciousness in regards to motherhood and who that person truly is.
Rather than play the game of which construct of motherhood is best, a better move may be to allow for women to chose their own construct. Maybe for some women that motherhood fulfills me is the telos that they desire. For other women, like yourself, this may not be the case.
Maybe for some of the celebrities motherhood is not a false consciousness and it provides more meaning than anything else that they do and that they actually believe that motherhood fulfills them. If this is the case, if Halle Berry actually feels this, does it matter what message it sends as viewers as the audience is able to accept or reject the message, to identify or not identify with that vision of motherhood?
As for your discussion of love that is intertwined in this post, I feel that our modern day conception of "love" is limited. I do not know if it makes sense to state you love one member of a family more than another as the relationships are quite different and they are not quantifiable. Instead, the Ancient Greeks had a better discussion of love, noting that it exists in multiple forms and providing names to those forms: Agape (general affection), Eros (passionate love), Philia (friendship), Storge (affection, especially for children), and Thelema (deep desire).
Solon, I briefly contemplated editing the post to add that I do think a person can be completely fulfilled by motherhood (or fatherhood for that matter) just as I think that a person can be completely fulfilled through a career, for example. I choose not to edit it, however, because I'm commenting on a situation that I find troubling for me--the idea that a woman can only find fulfillment through motherhood. I'm interested in this for two primary reasons: first, my work addresses it, which I didn't go into here, and second, I think this idea, which many parts of our society promote, sets unreasonable expectations for people. What if a woman (or a man) doesn't feel that profound change once she has a child? Does that mean something is wrong with her? I don't happen to think so, but lots of other people, as witnessed by the response Waldman received, do.
Oh, and I used celebrities b/c I had the easiest access to their comments. I fully realize (as I expect that my readers do too) that their responses are limited due to the nature of the interview. But I didn't want to use stories about acquaintances or other anecdotal evidence.
I read the links for Michelle Monaghan and Halle Berry and neither one of them actually says that motherhood is fulfilling, as such, and neither compares motherhood to career. I'm interested in the fact that they both seem to argue that their love for their child is the most profound love they've experienced, but that speaks more to your second, tangential, argument than your first.
In your comment to Solon, you mention that you used celebrities instead of family/friends, which I think is a good. But would you also argue that non-public individuals shouldn't say it if they are incredibly fulfilled by mothering (or, even, that their maternal love is the most powerful)? Or is the argument that you make based on the especially normative aspect of celebrity?
Either way, I'm going to be predictable and counter with the notion that these women just might be speaking for themselves and themselves alone. And if they feel that way, why should they have to keep quiet? Instead, it might be better to call for more mothers who feel like you do to share their stories, thus lending a broader perspective of voices from which women might make a choice.
M.
In your response, after you qualify your original post, you state that you are concerned with the norm that a parent can find fulfillment with parenthood. This norm may be a problem because it may create "unreasonable expectations" that some parents may not feel. In your original post, you argue that we ought to replace the first norm with a second, "parenting is only one part of a person's life."
Well, this second norm leads us back to the problem with the first norm: some people may find that this second norm leads to "unreasonable expectations." What is the resolution to this position?
Finally, I think that the celebrity distinction does matter and this is not a question about the knowledge of your "audience." In your original post you criticize celebrities because they have they influence to create and shape norms though. it seems, they are not promoting the norms that you prefer. While all parents have the power to shape norms, the original criticism focuses on the prominent people in society that help shape culture.
My comment is on the last part of your post. First of all I appreciate what you are saying about the difference between the love for a child and the love for a partner. And I do think that the discursive policing of motherhood in our (and most) societies is disturbing and needs to be opened up for discussion.
But I am conflicted. First of all I don't feel like I can say that I love SuperGuy (spousal unit) "more" than Buddy (age 2). They are so qualitatively different. Also, I love Buddy in a way that I know that can never be fully reciprocated (or at least that won't be fully reciprocated forever) and I am OK with that - in fact I find it liberating in a way. I love him so much that I want him to grow up and grow away from me so he can be an independent person with his own interests and life. And I want him to find a partner that he can share his life with (and I would never want to come between them).
On the other hand I do research and have spent a great deal of time living in a culture where there is absolutely no contradiction between being "mothered" (or parented) and being an adult. So while I will be raising Buddy in US culture, I hope that he will realize that it is OK to continue to depend on his mother when he needs to. And I often wonder if our culture's emphasis (obsession almost) with children (and especially sons) being "independent" is doing more harm than good. At this point in my life my resistance to the "independent" drumbeat is fairly easy - I still nurse him (when he wants to) and I help him fall asleep at night. And I have every confidence that I won't be doing that when he is 18 (and in the meantime I try to ignore the pointed jokes to that effect). So now I'm rambling, but I think what I am trying to say is that there needs to be some kind of acknowledgement that motherhood, while fulfilling, is not an "end-state," it is always changing and that our definitions of love and fulfillment need to be nuanced and unpacked more fully.
I will try to come back to comment more later, especially because the comment thread is already so dense and interesting!
Anyway... as you've probably noticed in my blog, I ALWAYS say that motherhood is more important to me than anything, and it is. My mom is JUST LIKE yours (minus the therapy), she still lives for us and her grandsons (my boy) and she has a really hard time accepting that we live so far away (K and I here, my brother and his wife in New Zealand, after China).
Anyway... I think you have valid points, but for some women, motherhood is this amazingly fulfilling thing. OK, I'll try to come back later.
Post a Comment