Every so often, one of us (mainly Diana) makes a social commentary on this blog. Today's post is one of those.
An old African saying: “it takes a village to raise a
child.” This alleged adage can be seen
on posters, greeting cards, and t-shirts.
But what does it mean? Do
villagers swap childcare with one another?
Do they look out for each other’s children? Does the child, literally, live at the center
of the village? We have the freedom and
ability to interpret this saying as we best understand it. My interpretation: raising a child is not an
individual journey. The village is a
metaphor for community, society, the world.
A couple of weeks ago, Hilary Rosen offended Ann Romney (GOP
presidential nominee hopeful, Mitt’s wife) and contributed to the notorious
“mommy wars,” by noting that Ann has not worked a day in her life because she
is a stay-at-home mom. While perhaps an
insensitive comment, the fact is that Ann Romney had the privilege to choose to
stay at home. This is an upper-middle/upper-
class privilege that is not afforded to most Americans, or citizens throughout
the world. Middle- and lower-class
married women must work. Poor women must
work. Single moms must work. Research finds that most African American
moms must work. They do not have the
privilege of choosing to stay
home. My comment here is not to
denigrate stay-at-home moms (SAHMs), because staying at home is not necessarily
easy work. I pride myself in being a
good mother because I do not stay home all day with my child. I would not enjoy it, would lose my patience,
and would probably go crazy. SAHMs must
keep cool, enjoy what they’re doing, and are likely better at it than I would
ever be.
To begin with, I never enjoyed homemaking, and really have
never homemade a single day in my life.
I enjoy other things, and am better at them, like research, teaching and
writing. I am a decent cook, but it’s
not my forte. Some people aspire to be
astronauts, chemists, vets, chefs, and countless other professions. I aspired to be a professor. But, this aspiration does not preclude my
desire to be a mom. A good mom. A great mom.
It is no surprise then that the proposed WORK (Women’s
Option to Raise Kids) Act irks me to the core.
There are several problematic things here, including patriarchal
language in the title. Within our
patriarchal society, men are typically expected to be the breadwinners. Why?
Is it because they’re better at it?
It is because they get paid more?
Is it because of some “hunter” instinct?
We can theorize on this for hours, even days and will not reach a
consensus. My belief? Patriarchy.
What better way to denigrate a group of individuals than to tell them
that their “natural” abilities shine most when they are not contributing to broader society? They are demure, passive and should tend to
their husbands who bring home money to support the family. And, because women are no good at
money-making, they are relegated to the prison of home. Homemaking.
Childrearing. Even if they do not
enjoy it.
On a recent trip with access to cable television, I watched The Hours. It is a brilliant film, depicting how three
generations of women are trapped in the roles attributed to them, and the
social consequences of the choices they make.
The disruption of social norms.
The unacceptability. And,
finally, escape. If you haven’t seen it,
it’s worth your while. Nicole Kidman, Julianne
Moore and Meryl Streep excellently capture women’s desires, hopes and
secrets. I thoroughly enjoyed it. But, I digress.
More on the WORK Act title – within a patriarchal society,
where men are expected to work outside the home and also father children, I
suppose then they do not raise them.
That’s it folks! A working dad
does nothing but contribute sperm and bring home money. Playing, helping them with homework, bathing
them, disciplining are not aspects of raising children. Only a stay-at-home mom can raise children. But sarcasm aside, let’s be real. Childcare providers do just that: provide
care. They are not the ones raising our
children. While they may contribute to
our children’s development, parents are the ones primarily responsible for
raising them.
If spending a large amount of time with someone is
equivalent to raising them, then children should all be homeschooled. When kids go to school, they are in the care
and guidance of teachers, who spend a large chunk of the day with them. We are then inadequate parents for the
majority of our kids’ lives since we send them to school. Even stay-at-home moms are only “raising”
their kids for 4-5 years, then it’s the teachers’ job until they’re 18 or
older. After that point, we might as
well give up our privilege of being parents altogether because our kids become
legal adults and move away from us. That
distance alone means we make no more impact on their lives. So, inferring from the title of the act, we
all cease raising our kids by the time they are in grade school; some earlier,
because they choose to work.
The text of the act is gender neutral, but the premise itself
is grounded in patriarchy, in the assumption and expectation that women should stay
home. Years ago, before I began my
graduate studies, a man tried to dissuade me from furthering my education -- he
told me that the most important job a woman could have is to be a good mother. He has four children, so I corrected him and
said the most important job anyone who chooses to have children could have, is
to be a good parent. That shut him up. As parents, our job is to shape our children
and nurture them into good, responsible citizens of the world. We are raising them communally, as parents,
teachers, doctors, musicians, baristas, etc., etc.
It truly takes a village.
This village however, needs to also be devoid of gender
inequality. What’s the point of “take
your daughter to work day” when they are expected to stay home once they have
children? The message we are sending our
daughters is this: “reach for the stars, but don’t get comfortable there. As soon as you have children, come back to
patriarchal earth, home-make and rear children, because that’s where you
belong.” Unsurprisingly, SAHMs are some of the most
educated people tired of battling lack of support from society, whether it be
emotional (mommy guilt for working), financial (still being paid 75 cents to a
man’s dollar) or physical (challenges of working the double shift outside and
inside the home). It’s great that some
people get to make that decision, as long as it is something they desire to
do. I would never choose to become a
taxi driver, brain surgeon, grade school teacher or oceanographer. I admire and respect the work they do. I’m not interested in it, and would be no
good at any of them. So, why force me to
even consider a career change?
