Katie Roiphe -- who I think it one of the most brilliant opponents of rape-culture feminism around -- defends herself against the absurd criticisms of her recent piece on the joy of motherhood.
Conor Friedersdorf also jumps to Roiphe's defense.
From what I gather, Roiphe's detractors are upset about the subtitle of the article ("Why won't feminists admit the pleasure of infants?") . . . which Roiphe did not select.
I've been a fan of Katie Roiphe for a little while now. She's an excellent writer and thinker. Here is an old piece where Roiphe attacks the alarmist and self-contradictory ideology of rape-culture feminism . . .
*Science of Science*
-
By Alexander Kraus, economist at LSE, the Oxford University Press book is
now open access on-line. Here is the chapter on the economics of science.
The ...
2 hours ago
11 comments:
One of the minor dishonesties of the feminist movement has been to underestimate the passion of this time, to try for a rational, politically expedient assessment. Historically, feminists have emphasized the difficulty, the drudgery of new motherhood. They have tried to analogize childcare to the work of men; and so for a long time, women have called motherhood a "vocation." The act of caring for a baby is demanding, and arduous, of course, but it is wilder and more narcotic than any kind of work I have ever done.
That is the problematic paragraph (and I think Harding poked a bubble in the "women authors only had one or two kids" deal, along with the "maternity leave" deal).
Feminism emphasize that motherhood is difficult because for too long motherhood was seen as something women were naturally good at, and something for which women deserve almost no praise. I can't tell you how often my father gets complimented for doing the things mothers are expected to do - that is the problem.
It isn't that feminists don't acknowledge the passion children bring. It is that they also recognize that parenting is hard - and too many mothers carry most of that themselves and get little to no recognition for it. Babies are difficult. Parenting is difficult. And mothers deserve help and praise. Calling motherhood a narcotic is all well and good - and the trials and tribulations are well worth it. But that misses the point of what feminism does in terms of motherhood, including giving women the opportunity to work, and the opportunity to take time off of work to relish in the opiate of child-rearing.
Also, I think it is important to acknowledge that not every woman experiences the same euphoria - Brooke Shields' book is proof of that. Feminism, in recognizing that babies are hard work, is also acknowledging that they aren't just or even always joy-filled days of wonderment. And that by creating a cult around motherhood, what it should be and how women should experience it, real women (and babies) are harmed and silenced.
I think she's just arguing that, historically, feminists have tended to de-emphasize the good stuff about motherhood. In her response, Roiphe acknowledges that there were legitimate reasons for this.
She says:
"From Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper, through Betty Friedan's brilliant Feminine Mystique, Naomi Wolf's Misconceptions, feminists have long argued about the arduousness of babies. I don't think this is a particularly controversial or original point: They wrote about the difficulty of child-rearing and they had their reasons. Any political ideology has to collapse the ambiguities and complexities of human experience in order to get things done, and feminism is no different."
Roiphe goes on to say:
"Nowhere in the piece did I tell anyone else how to live. Nowhere did I suggest that my experience of the first days of motherhood was any better, richer, or more interesting than anyone else's. (To me, the addiction metaphor implies a derangement and desperation not entirely to be recommended.) Nowhere in the piece did I attack anyone for having a different viewpoint or experience. (Though frankly one does worry about the fragile commenter: If someone chooses to wear an orange dress are you hurt because of the implied critique of your yellow one?) Nowhere did I say that feminists hate babies. In fact, my own mother was a feminist, and I like to think she liked me."
All of that is true. That's why I think the reaction to her piece was totally overstated.
It's true, as you explained, that feminists have emphasized the "drudgery of new motherhood." In Roiphe's experience, it's more complicated than that. For other women, it could be different.
Why is that so controversial? If feminist bloggers find this point offensive, then they are the ones denying the diversity of women's experiences.
Why is that so controversial? If feminist bloggers find this point offensive, then they are the ones denying the diversity of women's experiences.
Feminists find the idea that they don't talk about the joys of motherhood offensive, because - as you probably know - feminists have long been caricatured as being men-hating as well as baby-hating, for pointing out that motherhood isn't a walk in the park, even with the euphoria of motherhood.
Saying the feminist movement has been dishonest is playing into that. Saying, "This is my experience, and it isn't The Yellow Wallpaper" is different than saying, "Those feminists lied". Saying, "My experience is different, and it is just as valid as Alice Walker" is different than saying, "Feminists are painting a false picture of motherhood".
That's the difference.
And yes, having a subtitle of "Why won't feminists admit the pleasure of infants?" is part of the problem, even if it isn't Roiphe's fault. It is something that adds to the whole strawman argument that has been prevalent long before Roiphe's article was written.
Roiphe said, "One of the minor dishonesties of the feminist movement has been to underestimate the passion of this time, to try for a rational, politically expedient assessment."
I think this is a very nuanced, reasonable criticism. Roiphe didn't overstate her point or use any flamboyant language.
The contemporary feminist movement has (often explicitly) de-emphasized the "passion" that many new mothers feel, and this is a "minor dishonesty." It's dishonest (and self-contradictory) from a feminist perspective because it denies the experiences of many women by elevating only the "vocational" aspects of new motherhood. Some women may feel that motherhood is nothing more than work, but most mothers don't.
I don't see why Roiphe should be held accountable for those who accuse feminists of "baby-hating." Roiphe's not doing that, so this is a straw man.
I also don't think that referring to this as a "minor dishonesty" is quite the same as a saying, "Those feminists lied." The tone of Roiphe's statement is much different.
I also don't think that referring to this as a "minor dishonesty" is quite the same as a saying, "Those feminists lied." The tone of Roiphe's statement is much different.
What is dishonesty? Dishonesty is not being truthful. You can really only be dishonest if you lie - purposefully or not.
I don't see why you find her argument a nuanced criticism. I find it to be fairly flat. If you say, "Building a car is a lot of fun" and I respond, "Building a car is also a lot of work", I'm not being dishonest. I'm not underestimating the passion of car building. I'm adding to the idea already out there that car building is a lot of fun. And then, to that end, I could also add, "Car building is a lot of work, and not a lot of fun for everyone", thus making the picture more three-dimensional. I'm not denying the car-building aficionados; what I am doing is widening the picture and adding some detail. If I say, "Car-building can be a lot of fun, but men shouldn't be expected to build Corvettes for their families without praise or recognition for their work, especially since not all men like or are good at car-building", then I've got a social movement. To call adding that detail "dishonest" is to essentialize your own emotional response to car-building to include all people - which is silencing and isn't representative of the picture as a whole.
Some women may feel that motherhood is nothing more than work, but most mothers don't.
And I don't know of a feminist who would say motherhood is nothing more than work. Well, maybe Alice Walker. But the feminist movement as a whole hasn't really taken that hardline opinion on motherhood. What they have said is that motherhood is work, not wholly and completely but as an aspect of this other greater thing.
There are a great many things wrong with feminist response to motherhood. One of them is the on-going mommy-wars between women who stay at home and those who don't. Another is the fact that as a whole, the feminist movement hasn't progressed beyond getting maternity leave in motherly concerns. But the feminist movement as a whole took the social meme about motherhood - how it is a self-sacrificing and wonderful experience - and added the nuance, asking the questions about father involvement and pointing out that doing all the motherly duties is a lot of work, and sometimes not mentally stimulating work. And that women aren't naturally better at raising children and menfolk better at bringing in the dollar.
I don't see why Roiphe should be held accountable for those who accuse feminists of "baby-hating." Roiphe's not doing that, so this is a straw man.
There is some accountability for what appears on your article, even if you didn't write it, for the sole fact that it has your name on it. That doesn't mean that Roiphe should be boiled in oil, but the presence of the "Why don't feminists love babies" idea on the very top of her article does skew it. It isn't her fault, but it does highlight the public perception of feminists and babies - and is something that should be responded to - and it is something she can point to and say, "Not me, I don't agree with that at all". Much like how Justine Larbalestier responded when her book Liar, which has an African-American protagonist, came out with a white girl on the cover. Not her fault, but her name is on the work and needs to be addressed by someone - and if the author steps up and says, "not cool, man", it is better.
There was a conscious effort on the part of many feminist writers to emphasize the "vocational" aspects of motherhood. They did this because, as you said, they felt that "motherhood was seen as something women were naturally good at, and something for which women deserve almost no praise."
As Roiphe notes, their reasoning was understandable. (Roiphe says, "Any political ideology has to collapse the ambiguities and complexities of human experience in order to get things done, and feminism is no different.")
But rather than add "nuance" to the discussion," many feminist writers simply ignored or dimissed the "passion" that most mothers feel. This may be changing with some more contemporary feminist thinkers, but it was certainly true of the previous generation of feminist thinkers with whom Roiphe grew up. Roiphe's mother was (as I'm sure you know) a prominent member of this generation of feminists.
The "minor dishonesty," in Roiphe's view, was abandoning nuance rather than contributing nuance to the discussion.
It is certainly true that maintenancing a car can be both hard work and good fun. But it would be a minor dishonesty if I gave short shrift to one of those two points. For example, if I emphasized only the vocational aspects of automobile maintenance, I would be painting a distorted picture or reality -- because many people maintenance their cars for fun.
We can have a legitimate debate over whether feminists have historically de-emphasized the passion of motherhood. But I think the larger issue here is that many of the attacks on Roiphe's article were cutting down straw men. It's totally absurd to suggest -- as many feminist bloggrs did -- that Roiphe was portraying feminists as "baby-haters."
That's my real concern here.
But it would be a minor dishonesty if I gave short shrift to one of those two points.
See, I think Second Wavers gave more emphasis to one point because the other was so thoroughly presented - and so by focusing on a new part of the conversation instead of continually adding the caveat of "and mothers feel this passionately" they were creating a more nuanced argument and not - as a whole - dismissing the first part. They focused on the vocational, but - as a movement - didn't dismiss motherhood outright.
That's my problem with Roiphe's argument. It is that she ignores how prevalent the other side of the argument was, and how we should be smart enough to not have to begin every critique of the public idea of motherhood with "babies are great".
I don't think this is quite how the issue was presented by feminist thinkers of Anne Roiphe's generation.
The majority of Second Wave feminists believed that American social institutions emphasized only the positive aspects of motherhood. And that may have been true. But rather than move beyond this false dichotomy, feminist thinkers ultimately seemed to reinforce it.
Many feminist writers of that generation argued that motherhood wasn't something that most women embraced passionately; rather, it was a vocation that women entered reluctantly.
I think you and I agree that the truth is women's experiences are complicated and often distinct. And contemporary feminists (with the possible exception of Naomi Wolf) may have adopted this more nuanced position on motherhood. But, historically, this was not the case.
I think this really gets to the heart of one of the fundamental tensions between Second Wave Feminism and Third Wave Feminism. Second Wave Feminism was focused on female solidarity -- the universiality of female experiences -- whereas Third Wave Feminism is much more focused on the idea that women can make different life choices independently. Contemporary feminism hasn't fully reconciled these somewhat conflicting aims.
Emily had a really great post on how this tension seemed to play out during the Democratic primary.
Anyway, I think it was hard for Second Wave feminist to be nuanced when when their goal was to generalize female experiences. Roiphe is right that every "political ideology has to collapse the ambiguities and complexities of human experience in order to get things done, and feminism is no different." But this in so doing, I think political ideologies tend to generate what you might call "minor dishonesties."
I think I'm rambling at this point, so I'll stop . . . We probably need to have a much longer conversation about feminism. Maybe we can do some joint posts where I offer some of what I think are the problems with modern feminism and you can tell me where you think I'm wrong (if you think I am wrong).
Would you be up for that?
The majority of Second Wave feminists believed that American social institutions emphasized only the positive aspects of motherhood. And that may have been true. But rather than move beyond this false dichotomy, feminist thinkers ultimately seemed to reinforce it.
Two things about this:
While they may have seemed to reinforce it, I don't think the dichotomy was their intention. I don't think they meant to make it an either-or game.
And, I think it is hard to make a succinct point by having to grant that members of the audience are going to take your message in the wrong way - in bad faith or not. Feminists shouldn't have to say, "Motherhood is a good and great and glorious thing - that takes a lot of work and isn't for everyone." The idea that motherhood is a great and glorious thing is already out there. Adding to it shouldn't automatically make a dichotomy, nor should it be seen as a weakness.
Many feminist writers of that generation argued that motherhood wasn't something that most women embraced passionately; rather, it was a vocation that women entered reluctantly.
And this is something that is important, because for many women, prior to 1965 in terms of contraception and 1973 in terms of abortion, women did not (and today, still do not always) legally have the opportunity to decide when they wanted to have children. Motherhood was a given, and arguing that pregnancy and childbirth wasn't automatic wonderfulness and that a pregnancy could come along at the wrong time, that women should have some control of their reproductive functions. Aside from the whole religious aspect that made denying contraception fun, there was (and, I would posit, still is) a widespread thought that said all married women want to be mothers, like right now. And if you didn't, if you did want condoms or the pill, there was something wrong with you. Fighting that pervasive thought is something that I would assume would be rather difficult. Does it mean that all women entered into maternity reluctantly? No. Could the feminists have overstated their case? Yeah, probably. But when beating against a wall of cultural ideas of femininity and motherhood, I don't really know if going at it from a nuanced perspective would have helped. One of the things Obama's presidency has so far taught me is that no matter how middle of the road you actually are, you're always going to be considered a radical and painted as such by certain segments of the population. Which is a lesson I should have learned from that West Wing episode where Bartlett goes all arrogant on his opponent's ass because he's going to be seen as arrogant anyway.
Maybe we can do some joint posts where I offer some of what I think are the problems with modern feminism and you can tell me where you think I'm wrong (if you think I am wrong).
If you're still up for this, I'm all for it. Just be prepared for me telling you its something your little man-brain can't handle ;-D.
Correction:
Motherhood was a given, and arguing that pregnancy and childbirth wasn't automatic wonderfulness and that a pregnancy could come along at the wrong time, that women should have some control of their reproductive functions.
Should be:
Motherhood was a given, and arguing that pregnancy and childbirth wasn't automatic wonderfulness and that a pregnancy could coma along at the wrong time, that women should have some control over their reproductive functions was fairly radical.
Post a Comment