i'm referring to, as the New York Times called it, the Mommy Wars.
first of all, i think the idea of any 'Mommy War' is ridiculous—it's the equivalent of high school cheerleaders picking on, say, the science club or the yearbook staff, just because they chose the 'wrong' extra-curricular. what is it about women that compels us to constantly need a social pecking order? to incessantly judge each other, on everything from waistlines to spouses to hair styles to mothering skills? i can't express how obnoxious and hurtful i find this, i really can't.
second of all, there's this whole matter of, "well, you'd never ask a male candidate whether he could handle being vice president and a father at the same time." i have two responses to this.
number one: maybe we should.
and number two: it stands to reason, doesn't it, that since women carry their babies inside them for nine months, deliver them into the world and nourish them with their own bodies, that perhaps—especially in babyhood and childhood—mothers are especially crucial to their children? that maybe it's more important for mothers to be readily available to their children than it is for fathers?
before everyone goes up in arms, i am not knocking single fathers or same sex parents by any means. i'm just saying that perhaps biology plays a part here. when you do have two parents of opposite genders, they tend to play different roles in a child's life. is that the way it has to be? of course not. is that the way it typically goes? i think so.
and especially in this case—in the case of Sarah Palin—i think taking care of five children (one of whom has Down's and one of whom is currently growing her own baby) while trying to run for VP of the U.S. is utterly, inarguably impossible. i mean, i know very little about her, but i'm assuming that if she were a robot or a superhero, CNN would have broken the story by now. seriously, how can she be a proper mother to those kids and be second-in-command? she hasn't lived the D.C. life yet, as far as i know. she has no idea what she's in store for and i'm dismayed that she's willing to put so much on the line. something's gotta give, as they say, and i fear that for her, it will be motherhood.
but i'm not here to judge someone i don't know. i really just wanted to say that i think this whole debate over (or, more accurately, between) working moms versus stay-at-home moms detracts from the crux of the parenting issue. work-free or workaholic, all that matters is that a woman is a good mother. or a man is a good father. do you love your kids? nurture your kids? hug your kids? are the kids happy, well-adjusted, healthy? if the answer to all of these is yes, everything else is moot.
women can argue 'til the end of time about which choice is better—to work or not to work—but all that time they spend picking on each other and flapping their gums would be better spent, you know, being a mom.
mb
Posts
