A Scary View of Motherhood
by Candice Watters on 04/13/2007 at 6:24 PM
Solomon wrote "of the making of many books there is no end and too much study wearies the bones." And that was when books were written and copied by hand. With quills. On papyrus.
Thanks to Salon.com's review of The Feminine Mistake I can get author Leslie Bennetts' point and still save my strength and self-respect for books I want to read. Books that don't make a mockery of my commitment to my husband, our marriage and our children.
The author of the book, Leslie Bennetts, wants women to stop giving up their highly fulfilling careers for what she considers the far less important work of rearing their children, tending their marriages and maintaining their homes. And because men are so prone to let us down, and marriages so prone to end messily in divorce, anything less than financial independence, no matter what your marital state, is foolish.
The Salon reviewer says Bennetts' is another in the category of books by upper-class, Ivy-League -educated, white women, for upper-class, Ivy-League-educated white women. She notes that such "me and my friends journalism" can be annoying. I agree. Particularly if you're not one those friends. I know very few women who are as shrill, as anti-man and as purely motivated by economics as Bennetts is. And I know a lot of women.
Still, the small number of women who share her point of view (8 percent) do set important trends.
The Salon reviewer writes,
I agree with [Bennetts] ... about why these privileged women's choices matter to all of us: because they're disproportionately visible to the privileged men who run the world -- they are their wives and daughters and, if things continue, their mothers. And as long as affluent women opt out or get pushed out of top jobs and decision-making positions in order to raise children, men with stay-at-home wives and daughters and mothers will continue to make rules that make it hard for less privileged women -- and men -- to balance work and family. So these advantaged women and their decisions do matter.
This is a key point. Especially for Christian women who are trying to follow their design as women, rather than the feminist script constantly forced upon them. Yes, what elite women do when it comes to career and family matters, precisely because so many people are watching. When those most able to stay home and raise their own children -- informing their values and nurturing their character -- are discouraged from doing so, is it any surprise that the women who would have to make heroic sacrifices to do so don't?
When a powerful man's mother, wife and daughter make the next generation of leaders a priority, society fares well. When the responsibilities of children are removed from the protection of marriage and their care is cobbled together -- a mix of hours in daycare, government schools, nannies, and extended-day programs -- we all suffer.
But women like Bennetts don't see it that way. In the words of the Salon reviewer, Bennetts believes that
for certain soulless, status-seeking women (yes, they get under my skin, too) it seems that in a world of abundance and excess, the best way to prove your worth is to squander it, to forgo making a difference in the wider world while pretending that raising children is a lifelong endeavor (it isn't) that makes you better than other women (it doesn't).
It's tragic that we may actually have to go a whole generation to have the proof we need (in the form of offspring with mal-formed character, limping through life) that rearing children is making a difference and that, at least until they are adults, a present, engaged mom is essential.
To her credit, the Salon reviewer chides Bennetts for trying to rehabilitate "have it all" feminism, which she thinks "was retired with good reason years ago. It's very, very tricky to have it all -- great careers, great kids, great marriages. It's possible to have all three, but rarely all three at once. I'd rather not establish a new paradigm for feminine success that many young women will be unable to attain," she writes.
Research shows the climate has never been better for women to take time off from their careers to have and rear their kids and eventually, go back to what they were doing before the babies arrived. I just hope they hear this good news to balance out the fearful picture of financial doom Bennetts paints.
1. m Castillo said the following at 9:53 PM on Apr 13:
I think that lady is kinda funny. If my professor is right, most women who make it to the top of a company usually are bored when they get there.
I think it's funny that she says men will let you down but it's a two way street. It is also a team thing. I'm not married but in a serious relationship. There have been countless times where we have let each other down, it's bound to happen every week.
2. Jethro said the following at 11:38 PM on Apr 13:
Is Christian writing not a form of "me and my friends journalism"? In fact isn't this particular post a bit of "me and my friends journalism"?
Ah.... the irony.....
3. KathleenM12 said the following at 1:52 AM on Apr 14:
While exhorting women to drop out of the workforce to raise children, Watters failed to mention one of the most salient points in the entire Salon article -- what it will cost a woman to drop her career for stay-at-home motherhood. "Women lose 37 percent of their earning power when they spend three or more years out of the workplace. Elderly women are twice as likely as elderly men to live in poverty."
Losing over a third of your income is no trivial matter. While most of us are probably a long way from retirement, it would be foolish to ignore the repurcussions of lifestyle choices that virtually ensure that you'll spend the later 20-30 years of your life with 37% less financial security.
For many women, that 37% differential could determine whether they'll spend their 60s, 70s and 80s in economic comfort ...or in poverty.
4. Laura Z said the following at 10:48 AM on Apr 14:
I can't seem to understand this mentality...I am not yet married, and do not yet have children. I am gainfully employed in a career that brings me joy, and uses my college education to it's fullest.
And yet, I can absolutely sense that I was created to bring God glory, and that one of the greatest, most fulfilling ways of doing that, is by serving others. That serving will be magnified in awesome ways through a committed partnership with a husband who also desires to Glorify God...and through the blessing of loving and serving my children into an understanding of truth and a right relationship with Christ.
Yes, a career can bring fulfillment to some extent, but God created women...he created us to serve alongside...not to be less important, but important in a different way than men. I just can't agree with this ideology that serving your family is less important that having a big corporate job.
Be that as it may, this is again, another chance for us to be set apart. As followers of Christ, we should feel different about things than the often popular opinion. I am looking toward leaving my current job, which provides great benefits, a pension, and an adequate salary, in order to serve in a ministry job serving people that God has really laid on my heart, and equipped me to serve. People that aren't believers think I'm crazy, and not looking toward the future. After a lot of prayer, I feel that I am TOTALLY looking toward the future...not a future here, but in Heaven, and I am so excited to be able to focus this part of my life on being used by God to lead and disciple people to Him. The opposition is frustrating, but wrong. I choose to be set apart...
This is a similar situation. Being a wife and mother who actually lives that job, is not accepted by some, doesn't seem to bring fulfillment for the future according to women who find little value in it. Yet, WE can be set apart...guiding our families, not leaving them to find their own way.
5. Ame said the following at 10:50 PM on Apr 14:
The subtle bitterness and anger resonate under the surface of her words. How sad, really, that she has convinced herself of such empty and unfulfilling lies.
The irony is that these women find themselves so extremely valuable and important yet find children so extremely unimportant that who raises them is just a flippant choice one must make so as to obey the law that children must be supervised ... oh, and to be able to add to their status when their children do excel.
Doesn't quite fit into Jesus' words: "An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, 'Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest.'"
You know, it is so sad. It's the children who loose the most. The tears that God must shed when His little treasures are so ill treated.
I think it's good to note that this isn't talking about women who work ... it's about women who value work above all else to the extent of degrading that which God has placed in such high esteem.
6. Leah said the following at 8:05 AM on Apr 15:
This really gets under my skin. I want to write to this Bennetts woman and tell her one thing- "There is more to life than career. It's called love. Love for a husband, for children, and for a safe, happy and secure family." Of course there's God too, but I don't think that would go down well with a secular author like Bennetts... then again, perhaps love wouldn't, either. What a sad existence she must lead, a life void of any meaningful love.
7. Emily said the following at 9:43 AM on Apr 15:
How desperately I need such encouragement that staying home and raising kids is the highest good a woman can pursue! I KNOW this in my head, and it's what I want with all my heart, but my desire is bombarded from all sides, even from within my Christian community. "You went to college just to stay home with your kids?" I don't know how to respond! Please keep the encouragement coming.
8. Abby said the following at 12:50 PM on Apr 15:
I appreciate your article. I think young women, especially those in higher education, need to be reminded that it is an amazing and attainable goal to be a well educated stay at home mom! Often my professors and fellow classmates encourage education and career to be pursued over family. But I have to say I think you are being a bit dooms-dayish. The mothers of the 70's, 80's, and 90's were also encouraged to take the view that staying at home was not a worthy endeavor and that financial independence was something to be strived for. This is not a new phenomenon for our generation. I think we are already feeling the effects of children raised by "daycare, government schools [NOT always bad!], nannies, and extended-day programs." I see in many communities there is already a turn around of young married women who were raised in a "career over kids" environment that are making conscious decisions to raise their kids differently. So yes the elite woman of this world do have an influence but I think women are moving away from that mindset. It no longer needs to be a "heroic sacrifice" to stay at home but rather something that is of great benefit to women and their children for the season of childrearing in a mother’s life.
9. Tomi said the following at 10:48 PM on Apr 15:
While I don't disagree with what a lot of this post said, do we really need another Boundless post bashing feminism? I'm starting to lose count, I think we might actually need a "feminists are evil and going to hell" tag.
Kidding! Well, kind of...
All I'm asking for is a little balance
10. Katie said the following at 12:29 AM on Apr 16:
Most mothers have to work at some time or another. My own mother makes most of the income in my parent's situation - mostly because my dad has multiple sclerosis and has pastored small churches. Also, the majority of women end up as widows, and the majority of the impoverished elderly are women. These are just facts.
This whole issue of working outside the home or not is quite tricky. We need to esteem the value of mothering, while not guilting those mothers who choose to invest in their professional careers. Bottom line is that all parents (women and men) should put their marriages and their children at higher priorities than their careers.
Personally, I hope to stay home basically full-time when my children are small (before they enter school). I want to somehow "keep my foot in the water" during this time so that I can stay up to date in my career, but I'm not sure exactly what that might entail. After my children are in school, I hope to enter the work force more fully.
There are different seasons in a woman's life. You cannot have it all at the same time, but I am beginning to recognize some of the wisdom of keeping career skills relevant even while children are small. It's all so tricky, and I certainly don't have it all figured out.
11. Megan S. said the following at 1:24 AM on Apr 16:
I completely agree that it is highly important to rear the kids at home. I just went to a women's retreat, the speaker spoke on this very topic. At first it raised hair on my neck, I happen to be active duty in the military and am unmarried, and have no children but deeply want both in the future. My reaction was because both of my mom's (my mom and step-mom) have worked their whole lives while raising kids. But I realized that if you have the choice to stay home and be a mom, you should. I, because of this realization, have decided not to follow a career in the military, but to be a stay at home mom. I sure hope that more women start to think like me and not throw their children out to strangers to be raised and taught.
12. Matthew said the following at 7:43 AM on Apr 16:
As I read this post, I am reminded again of my frustration with the secular worldview on marriage, family, and children. As a matter of fact, sometimes I could categorize my feelings as "more than frustration."
Regardless, this morning, I had a radical thought- why don't we let the secular world or radical feminists have their own way? Think about it- while we as Christians are committed to marriage, family, and children, we will raise up a new generation of devoted followers (theoretically speaking)- our numbers will increase. At the same time, those who are not making marriage, children, and family a priority (such as those mentioned on *A Scary View of Motherhood*) typically delay or avoid bearing children. This will cause the "number of offspring" of those who do not prioritize marriage, family, and children to decline(again, theoretically speaking).
Am I just crazy? There are a host of other factors to think about- but isn't it possible that if we continue to live godly lives rearing strong families, we'll eventually outnumber the critics? There has to be a silver lining to this problem somewhere!
13. Becky F. said the following at 10:54 AM on Apr 16:
That was an interesting book review. I agree that it is annoying that these books always point out the mistakes and shortcomings of women when it comes to work, home, child-rearing, etc. Every woman is different. We don't all have to live cookie-cutter lives that follow the same template towards "success" in life and the workplace. Why point out our differences as "mistakes"?
Feminism gave women the right to choose whether to chase a career, or raise a family, or both, in whatever order she chooses. I think these "Chicken Little" type books are forgetting that important aspect of human life and free-will.
One thing that really bothers me about these types of books is that they assume that most men will be bad husbands, will cheat, be alcoholics, be overpowering, you name it that's a bad husbandly/manly trait. I have a wonderful husband who loves me as himself and treats me with love, respect, and courtesy. I feel sorry for women in relationships with bad men, but we can't assume that just because a lot of men really are bad husbands, that this speaks for all men.
Also, this divorce rate statistic is always used pessimistically. We never say, "half of marriages succeed". Half of all American marriages are for life and do not end in divorce. Granted, not all of those marriages are good and pleasing for both spouses, but I would say that a large proportion of those marriages are good and fulfilling. People don't care about those statistics though, just ones that put things in a negative light.
14. Becky F. said the following at 12:30 PM on Apr 16:
Matthew, I think that's an interesting thought, and I've thought about it before. What if Christians continued to bear children and raise them in Godly homes, and many of those who do not value children and family would just have their way with themselves?
However, I think that these people who do not value children, or raising their own children at least, are in a minority of secular people, even. Many unreligious people value having children and families along with the religious people (who include not only Christians but Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and especially Mormons, etc.).
I don't think, then, that our real opposition and struggle for our children in the future will be with poorly raised children by those who value themselves (and their careers) more highly than their offspring, but with children who are raised in stable, loving homes to people of false religions, who are genuinely good people, but are walking on the path of darkness.
15. Becky F. said the following at 12:34 PM on Apr 16:
The only thing, Jethro, is that this type of "me and my friends" writing is marketed only towards "me and my friends." I'm sure those secular books try to capture the audience of those who fall outside of the "friend circle", while Christian authors are really only writing for Christian readers, which is why Christian books are not reviewed by Salon.com or make the NYT best sellers lists (often).
16. k. said the following at 2:51 PM on Apr 16:
I'm trying to figure out what it is about Ms. Watters' post that got under my skin. I think it's phrases like, "...Christian women who are trying to follow their design as women, rather than the feminist script constantly forced upon them." But what is Ms Watters doing, other than trying to force her script on Christian women (or at least, her readers)??
My "design" as a woman is to love God, serve Him, and reflect that in whatever I do. I firmly believe that the most important job a person can have -- male or female -- is that of parent. That doesn't mean you can't have another job, it just means that parenting is the one job you *need* to do well. If you're a workaholic mom or dad who's ignoring their family's needs, that's a problem. If you're a SAHM (or dad) and ignoring your family's needs, that's also a problem.
If you're called to stay home fulltime, that's great. But it's not the only acceptable alternative out there. Being a fulltime SAHM is not the only way to be "a present, engaged mom" in your child's life.
17. Marie said the following at 3:52 PM on Apr 16:
I only read the first chapter of the book that I found online but I happen to agree with the author of the Feminine Mistake and not with Candice. It is not making a mockery of marriage and family to say that bad things happen – be smart be prepared. Yes not all men are bad husbands that abandon their families, but growing up in the church as the daughter of a minister I have seen first hand how things can go awry.
I have seen good men die: either from a risky profession like fishing, from sudden heart attack, or from long prolonged illnesses. I have also seen men left severely disabled from illness or accident, suffer from mental breakdowns or yes simply run off with another woman. As a result the quality of life of their wives and children suffer horribly and the suffering is always worse in the case where the wife is a SHAM.
These women are good God fearing women that valued family over career so after several years of marriage they find themselves with 3 or more kids, no or little education, no or little work experience and they are now the sole bread winner for their family. Do I need to spell out the toll this takes on the mother and the children?
We as women have to be practical - regardless of why the husband is no longer in the picture, even when your heart is breaking and all hopes and dreams ripped away or destroyed it is a lot easier to survive knowing that yes I can pay the bills, yes I can feed the children, when the car breaks down I can pay to fix it, when little Billy gets pneumonia I can pay for the antibiotics, we might have to live in a smaller house but we will not be on the street or in a bad neighborhood and little by little by the grace of God I can and will raise my children because I have a good education, I have a career that I never gave up.
There is more than one way to be a mother. Mine is the best in the world – in addition to holding down a full time job, she was also a ministers wife, Sunday school superintendent, Choir director, (and everything else that goes into being a ministers wife) a great cook, loving mother, never missed a school play, took days off when we were little and sick etc. I never felt like I wasn’t a priority and I never felt like I wasn’t loved.
18. Kelly said the following at 5:39 PM on Apr 16:
I'm one of those described as a 'career woman', but it's not by choice. It's more the fact that I don't have a husband so children and family are not (yet) a possibility for me. I wonder how many so called 'career women' are the same as me, following this path because if they don't, society will tag them as lazy/useless.
Then again, I do disagree with women who go to college never intending to use their degrees. I have a cousin who is studying medicine. This is a program that was very difficult to get into and costs $$$ - and she has told me, several times, that she never intends to practice as a doctor. She's just studying to 'fill the time' until her boyfriend graduates and can marry her.
19. Leah said the following at 6:48 PM on Apr 16:
Tomi- this post wasn't just bashing feminism (although I do believe feminism deserves to be bashed :P). It's bashing a particularly strong, over-the-top type of feminism- a feminism that offends even women, a huge group of women, who choose motherhood over career. I think it's important to discourage this type of thinking and encourage those who choose the far more important path of motherhood.
Kathleen- Candice was not exhorting anyone to drop out of the workforce. (Even though I would support her if she did). She was simply taking offence at someone who seems to condemn the (very praise-worthy) path of motherhood. And so she should- I do too.
As for your issue about finances- do you not trust your husband to provide for you? I might lose a third of my income when I drop out of work to have children (actually, I'd probably lose a lot more than that), but combined with my husband's, sticking with this 'lose 1/3 theory' our household would probably lose less than 15% of its income (I actually think it would lose more, and this wouldn't have adverse side effects). When you carry on about all the differences that 37% could make to a woman, you seem to forget that if a woman were to leave her career to raise children, she would also have a husband still bringing in money.
Not to mention, I'd probably end up back at work a few years down the track (even if just part time).
Now, to combine both yours and Marie's fears- for a woman to drop out of work to have children does not automatically mean financial disaster if something happens to the husband. My mother did not work for about 10 or 12 years- from the time I was born to the time my youngest sister, 7 years my junior, started kindergarten or preschool. But she has a college education, she worked for 7 years before I was born, and returned to part-time work after my sister started school. (As a teacher, I think she taught some substitute days even before then, and any still-at-home kids went to grandparents' for the day.) Not to mention we have an investment property that has more than doubled in value, and my father is very wise with money. If he were to die, we would be fine, financially. (And my father does not have a particularly high-paying job; he is an electrical sales manager.) Things might not be easy- mum would have to go back to full time work- but we would be comfortable on what we have and it would suit us fine til more money started coming in from mum's full time job. We are a case where Mum dropped out of work to have kids, but we'd be financially stable should something happen to Dad. And as I look around my church, we are not an exception. Marie, my Mum woudl be able to say "yes I can pay the bills, yes I can feed the children, when the car breaks down I can pay to fix it, when little Billy gets pneumonia I can pay for the antibiotics, we might have to live in a smaller house but we will not be on the street or in a bad neighborhood and little by little by the grace of God I can and will raise my children because I have a good education, I still have a career that I once gave up to raise my young children."
20. Anne said the following at 7:27 AM on Apr 17:
Marie,
If a family's livelyhood is dependant on two incomes then the removal of one income for whatever reason will have the same impact as a family that looses the single income they are dependant on.
If, God forbid, a woman finds herself facing this big world alone unexpectadly there are several things to consider:
1. The Bible takes this into account and requires that the church help that woman.
2. Even in Michigan, where the economy is in shambles the unemployment rate is 7%, This means that in order for a woman not to find a jpb she would have to be more stupid and unqualified than 93% of the populace. And if it turns out that she is then she may have to move out of state where a larger percentage of people can find work.
3. She can always get training (assuming that she doesn't already have a bachlors. And no one here on boundless has ever discuraged women from getting an education. They simply encourage women to use it to run their households.)
And I will reiderate: a two income family will experiance a heck of a loss aswell. A carrer is not insurance, it is just that: a carrer.
21. Becky F. said the following at 12:45 PM on Apr 17:
Sometimes people think they need two incomes when they can get by with one, especially if childcare is a household expense. My husband is going to be a pastor, so he will never make much more than maybe $45,000 a year in his career, and he'll probably start at somewhere under $30,000. To many people, this doesn't sound hardly livable, and granted, if I worked full-time when we had kids our income would be more, but if we're paying a lot for childcare, is it really worth it?
22. Keisha said the following at 12:33 PM on Apr 20:
I have been struggling with this issue as I reach a crossroads in my personal and professional life, and so I actually went out and bought this book. While the first few chapters about the risks of completely and permanently abandoning your career were sensible, the later chapters devolve into a 60s-era feminist-style rant on the stupidity of women who drop out of the paid labor force for any amount of time, the meaninglessness and drudgery of domestic work, and the betrayal of women who fail to "maximize their potential" by not accepting the fact that there is more to life than the extent of your professional accomplishments. I grew more and more disgusted with her disdain towards child-rearing and traditional gender roles (and her unfounded assertions that everyone -- husbands, children, peers -- hold SAHMs in the same low esteem), until I hit this unbelievable quote which sums up her attitude towards women who don't share her outlook on life: "Women are the {expletive} of the world".
As a black woman, I reacted to the line like a punch to the gut. After reading that, I threw the book to the floor. I'm trying to see if I can take it back to the store... It just goes to show that you need to know what people's underlying ideology is, and how much it might diverge with your own values, before you consider the relevance of anything they might have to say. Even though the book was couched as a pragmatic, precautionary collection of anecdotes, Bennetts' intent was far from that.