Saturday, February 23, 2008

 

A MOTHER WHO DOESN’T WANT TO MOTHER -- GASP!

I’m writing this blog entry on a flight between Toronto and Seoul and it’s in response to something I just read. My friend bought me some trashy magazines featuring the latest exploits of Hollywood stars for something to peruse when my brain went mush from too much sitting and not enough sleep ... a point in time somewhere between the 8th and 12th hour of the flight! Magazines like Star and In Touch are not my usual reading material - among other things I think these magazines are incredibly invasive of people’s lives - but I was very touched that my friend would send me off with a care package and so on route I decided to crack the covers of the magazines. Here’s my commentary about Britney Spears, motherhood and the social web we weave - the web that we make and that also makes us.

When I was walking through the airport terminal a magazine’s cover story caught my eye; supposedly Britney Spears doesn’t want her boys back. Low and behold Britney was also the cover story for the In Touch magazine my friend bought me. Word on the street is that Britney doesn’t want to have custody of her boys right now and has said that once she is well she doesn’t plan on fighting Kevin [her ex-husband and father of her boys] for custody. The magazine pretty much takes these statements and paints a demonizing image of her - HOW COULD SHE NOT WANT HER BOYS BACK??!!!!

The point of this blog is not to focus more attention on Britney Spears. I think she deserves a break from being trashed, evaluated, scrutinized etc. The reason I brought up Britney was because I wanted to use her story to illuminate a social phenomenon. Overall, in the current North American socio-political context it is expected that women want to become mothers; that they are unhappy and unfilled if they can’t or choose not to become mothers; that anyone who is a mother instinctually feels drawn to be a “good” mother; and that xy and z are what make a “good” mother. Women who don’t live up to the “good” mother standard or who don’t want to be mothers, or who are happy being the secondary rather than the primary caregiver of their child[ren] tend to be thought of as “off”, unwell, not normal or in Britney’s case, sick.

Britney may very well be sick but isn’t that all the more reason to be congratulating her for knowing her boundaries and that she is unable to be the primary caregiver for her boys instead of demonizing her for - heaven forbid - not wanting her boys back ... Which in the current social context is taken as meaning “I don’t care what happens to my boys” instead of “I am prepared to be the secondary caregiver. Or I am happy/happier being the secondary caregiver”.

I think “the Britney” situation points out just how much we still associate womanhood with mothering and mothering with selfless unending devotion. The fact that Britney supposedly doesn’t want her boys back is an easy way for the magazines to grab people’s attention. This is the case because news of any woman - any mother - not being fully committed to being a mother is newsworthy. Britney’s supposed “confession” has the power to shock us and it is in examining why her statement shocks us that we can learn more about the society we live in and assumptions about motherhood.

Cheers - e.

# posted by Kim Sedgwick @ 1:35 PM
Comments:
I wanted to recommend a couple of books at Red Tent Sisters which address this issue of the social pressure on women to feel a 'maternal instinct' which, in the case of many women, is not a part of their identities. "Nobody's Mother: Life Without Kids" (2006) edited by Lynne Van Luven, and "Maybe Baby" (2006) edited by Lori Leibovich investigate the assumption that all women want children and should strive to be (good) mothers. This has an effect on women who may desire children but are unable to conceive, as well as on women who do not wish to have or mother children. I found the conclusion to Michelle Goldberg's essay "To Breed or Not to Breed" in "Maybe Baby" particularly poignant. Goldberg discusses the absence of her desire to have children, and the responses and pressures that have come as a result of her decision. She writes: "Still, when people say you'll change your mind, they could be right. If that happens, though, I hope it's because the desire to be a mother smacks me sideways, and not because I'm afraid of what it means that the desire isn't there" (10). Certainly the decision not to have children is different than the decision not to act as primary caregiver to one's children. But I think that both scenarios are tightly bound with what Ellen identifies as the social construction of a 'biological urge' or 'maternal instinct'. And I think these so called urges and instincts need critical consideration!
# posted by Blogger Mary Harrison : February 24, 2008 2:46 PM
 
I just want to thank you for this refreshing point of view and to tell you that I agree wholeheartedly. Women are told repeatedly that the wellness everybody else in our lives comes before our own and it is commendable when a woman can take a step back and realize that she needs to heal herself before she can take care of others. Maybe this is an indication that this poor young woman is finally starting to heal.
# posted by Blogger Carolyn : February 29, 2008 8:48 AM
 
Post a Comment





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]