| An article by Stephanie Wilkinson in BrainChild Magazine  last year pondered the question, “Is there a mothers’ movement?’ and concluded  that, overall, the situation was a bit like France in the months leading up to  D-Day: much buzz, no action. Lately, though, there’s been a distinct rumbling in the  air -- and though it’s too soon to tell if this is the real thing, we do know  what’s making the noise. It’s the mighty organizational apparatus of  MoveOn.org, the online political advocacy group, which has now spawned a group  called MomsRising.org and, most importantly, a book called The Motherhood Manifesto: What America's Moms Want and What To Do About  It. Written by Joan Blades, a co-founder of MoveOn.org, and writer/activist  Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, The Motherhood  Manifesto aims to be for the twenty-first century mother’s movement what The Feminine Mystique was for the twentieth  century women’s movement: a groundbreaking, consciousness-raising, rousing call  to grassroots political activism. In many ways, the book succeeds admirably. It is solidly  researched and well organized, the graphics are catchy, and the M.O.T.H.E.R.  acronym is a compelling way of encapsulating the issues which concern all  mothers these days, whether they are Red State Republicans or Blue State  Democrats: Maternity/paternity leave, Open flexible work, Television and the  media’s stranglehold on our kids, Healthcare, Excellent Childcare, Realistic  and Fair Wages.  Blades and Rowe-Finkbeiner have compiled a compelling and  comprehensive indictment of the way American culture treats mothers (and though  everything they say is applicable to fathers too, they rightly point out that  women are the ones who suffer from wage bias by becoming parents, and women  make up the overwhelming majority of single parents). Most mothers work, and  most of them work for companies whose “family-friendly” policies -- assuming  they exist -- serve mainly as a cautionary reminder that asking for part-time  work or flexible hours is apt to stall a career. The United States has no  shortage of political rhetoric about “family values,” but the U.S. and  Australia are the only industrialized countries in the world where workers get  no paid family leave whatsoever (and Australian workers get a full year of  guaranteed unpaid leave, compared to only 12 weeks for workers here -- if, that is, their company has 50 or  more employees).  The chapter on health care is the clearest and most cogent  explanation I’ve ever seen of why this should be a subject of vital importance  to mothers: because health benefits in this country are not provided by the  government but by private employers,  one  parent becomes tied to the job which serves as the vehicle for the family’s  health insurance. Because that person is usually the father, that leaves --  guess who? -- to deal with child care and all the attendant complications: the  need to find flexible hours or part-time work (often at lower hourly wages even  if it is the same work she did before motherhood), not to mention the search  for competent and reliable child care.  Blades and Rowe-Finkbeiner don’t make this argument, but it  occurs to me that health care may prove to be the bedrock issue on which to base a mothers’ movement. Even  conservatives with a visceral dislike for anything that sounds remotely like  “socialized medicine” will be sobered by the authors’ summary of what now  passes for a health care system in this country—a bewildering array of 7,000  private health plans, each with its own pricing structure, billing practices  and arcane definitions of coverage. Even families with first-rate health  insurance these days live one catastrophic illness away from financial ruin,  and the number of uninsured and under-insured families grows daily. Television is another matter. The insidious hold mass media attempts  to exert on our children is, no doubt, an important subject. But is television  crucial to a discussion of a mothers’ movement? I don’t think so -- but hey:  there’s a T in “mother,” and something had to go there, I guess. And even  though the inclusion of this subject seemed a bit of a stretch, I learned  something: only 17 percent of all American households actually use the V-chip  in their television remote to control their children’s viewing habits. (I  didn’t even know we had a v-chip in  my house. Turns out we have two.) The test of any good sermon, obviously, is how effectively  it persuades the unconverted -- and here, I regret to report, The Motherhood Manifesto pretty much  preaches to the choir. Go online, plug in the phrase “mommy wars,” and you will  soon discover -- if you didn’t know already -- the immense amount of vitriol generated  by any discussion of motherhood these days. “The problem is, [mothers] are not  being discriminated against,” reads one typical comment on Alternet.org. “What  [they] want is special breeder privileges.”  It’s tempting to dismiss such remarks as foam-flecked  rhetoric from the aggressively child-free -- but under the foam is a wave. There  are two basic critiques which any mothers’ movement must address if it is to  have a prayer of creating social change, and The Motherhood Manifesto deals with neither. The first, and most  common, is what I call the “you play, you pay” argument: having children is a  choice, the counter-argument goes, so don’t ask the rest of us to give you a  special deal just because you decided to procreate. The second critique comes  from those who see the mothers’ movement as being led by economically  privileged women who want their adorable children, their high-powered careers  and a mocha latte on the side. The second argument is the harder one to answer, because it  contains more than a grain of truth: we do live in a materialistic culture,  some of us in houses three times as big as any our parents ever dreamed of -- and,  in fact, the mothers’ movement at this point is led by a cadre of women who are members of the economic and  educational elite. But it’s always been that way: the women’s suffrage movement  wasn’t exactly the creature of Irish washer-women, but of women with the  education and leisure to pursue social change. Still, in this era of the  widening gap between rich and poor, it would behoove the mothers’ movement to  take extraordinary pains to present itself as the voice of the working poor -- especially the working poor -- and not  just the upper middle class.  The “you play, you pay” argument is relatively easy to  counter. When people have children  may be a choice, thanks to reliable birth control, but children themselves  aren’t really a choice -- not unless we passed a referendum in favor of species  extinction when I wasn’t looking. Our children, after all, will be the doctors  who tend to the “childfree” when they are old, who will manage their brokerage  accounts, who will grow up to pay the taxes for the services they will use for  the next 30 years or so. Yes, children are the responsibility of their parents  -- but society shares that responsibility too, just as it has done without any  serious debate for the past 75 years for senior citizens, via programs like  Medicare and Social Security. (Odd, how you never hear the child-free extending  their arguments to include eliminating those, even though it’s a perfectly  logical next step.)  To gain any traction, any mothers’ movement in this country  is going to have to engage these arguments, and others besides -- and when it  comes to the nitty gritty, The Motherhood  Manifesto is more packaging than product. There’s no doubt much to be  learned from the grassroots kind of organizing that MoveOn.org has pioneered so  successfully, and Joan Blades and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner have made a good  start in the direction many of us feel that society needs to go. But D-Day  involved more than just a bunch of boats, and I sincerely hope that  MomsRising.org has more thinking power to put into the fray than what is  contained in The Motherhood Manifesto -- like, maybe, a few demolition experts. Because see those weird metal thingys  up there on the beach with the barbed wire wrapped around them? That’s not  sculpture, folks. Those are land mines. mmo : june 20006 |