The first comment--good news for me--is, my computer can read your new posts now....woo hoo!
My second comment is that I think at least *some* of this burden language has *got* to come from the unreasonable assumptions middle-to-upper class society puts on its parents. Childhood is a cultural creation, as well as a bio-psychological set of states, and in terms of the former, we've created a monster. You are supposed to provide your kid with all advantages, protect it from each and every potential harm, chauffer it wherever it wants (or you want it) to go, supervise it at all times....etc etc etc.
I'm not saying life wouldn't be fundamentally changed by having kids, but this "give up your own life" language seems bizarre. Either previously single people's lives were *more* self-centered than I can imagine (don't we always have obligations to others, not only our children?), or they are doting too much on their children if they think they have to give up everythiing to their new bundle of joy.
When I think back to my own childhood, both in "conservative" Michigan and "liberal" new York, there was a whole lot of communal sharing of child care and/or plenty of sending us out to play on our own with a warning to look both ways before we cross the street and please not get killed. Both my parents had careers and very full lives, and so did we (full lives, I mean). Everyone made compromises, some of them big ones, but every major life choice requires the resignation of other possibilities.
So in short, yes I'm sure your life will fundamentally change. You've made a major life choice to have a family. That's got to be at least as big as a major career choice (Gettysburg, PA must have involved making compromises!). But I don't think that means you have to give up who you are to become a host to a parasite for 18 - 21 years.
There's a lot of jealousy out there of mothers and children which expresses itself as hostility and telling you how awful it all is.
I have learned not to argue. Most of the nay-sayers are not happy and would change places with you in a moment if they could.
Enjoy this greatest event in your life.
I think when there's a situation comprising good points and bad points, people always like to sound off about the bad points, because as a society, I think "bad stuff" sells. No one wants to hear about how happy you are. And if you are happy, everyone wants to tear you down a peg - how DARE you be happy when I'm not/there's so much suffering/etc etc.
I'm guilty of only talking about the bad stuff when I get together with other mums - but then, it's also a valuable opportunity to vent, gain support, and hear about alternative child-rearing techniques that might work for my child. Venting is important, because sometimes these little bundles of joy can be complete assholes, but I always try and balance it with the good stuff. My family and friends blog is just filled with the excellent moments my son and I have together, so that when I'm at wit's end and really having a hard time, I go back t o the blog and read about all the things that make me happy about him. It helps.
Sorry about the rambling. Parenting is too big to fit into one reply. Luckily you have someone with you who has been through the process before, and is prepared to help you through the life adjustment. I'm happy for that.
Magickitty is right on the button there. I remember a writer who said that when he said a t a party full of other writer-types that he had a well-adjusted childhood and quite enjoyed high school, he was looked at as if he had just said that he was selling crack to 8th graders. It's the same with parenthood. We either focus exclusively on the negative or romanticize the experience, leaving out the reality.
Yes, life will be different. But it is also different when you find a partner. Suddenly, you are not hanging out with the old crowd anymore. You need to visit his/her family over the holidays. The bathroom cabinet is now a place of compromise. In the same sort of way, having kids adds love to your life and responsibilities. In this case more responsibilities because you really are this person's mommy instead of just having to act like it. You literally will have to wipe his/her bottom.
There are changes -- and I mean more than dirty diapers. TheWife and I have seen three films in the last six years, but I cannot tell you how much I enjoy reading Pipi Longstocking before bed with my little snugglebunnies on either side. It's a trade. If what you are giving up is that precious to you, don't have kids.
I agree that the language is designed to keep child-rearing from seeming trivial, most likely someting used in an attempt to quell teenage sexual activity and make those who choose not to have kids despite enormous social (and parental) pressures feel better.
We should have similar terms as we use with finding a love interest. We hook-up or shack-up instead of being dragged down or weighed down. We find our other half, instead of having something growing on our hip. Maybe we can use these as templates in some way.
Some people fear change and other embrace it. When I was in high school I remember some people talked about college as if they were being sentenced to four more years of high school. Some of them did not go to college and could not see why anyone would want to voluntarily stay in school. For them eductation was a burden (like marriage/ children). Who the hell wants to grow old behaving like a teenager anyway?
I think child rearing is a great learning experience. When people said to me "your life is about to change," I said "good...I am ready for something new." It is easy to ignore people without kids when they say dumb stuff; its the ones who have kids that are always complaining that perplex me. I say, tune it out and do your own thing. I do think that pregnancy especially seems to invite unsolicited advice and fortunately it will not be as bad once you are doing the baby thing (since you won't be seeing other humans anymore---JUST KIDDING). For some reason people feel like they need to "warn" pregnant people and their partners. The first question is always, "is this your first?," which they already seem to sense and then followed by some bit of "wisdom" (like the nurse). This will go away once you have an infant. Then it wlll be strangers trying to paw at it in the Giant (oh well).
Two comments. First, I think you're in the US, right? I have noticed that the USA is vehemently mother-and-child negative. That's why the lack of decent (or any) legislated maternity leave provisions. The point seems to be to force women to think of children as their own selfish decision if they have them, and their own problem to raise, because don't expect any help. At the same time women are expected to feel guilty if they don't have them. There seems to be even less sense in the USA than there is anywhere else (every country except Denmark is guilty of this to a degree) that having children is volunteer labour that women do for their entire culture. And their culture had better support the effort, or women will just stop doing it.
So of COURSE you're hearing a rhetoric of burden. Your culture wants you to be perfectly clear that it's your fault you're knocked up and it is your load to carry. You are being set up to accept the notion that child care is your job, it's ALL your job, and any driblet of help you get from anywhere else is not a right, and you had better be pathetically grateful.
Now, as I say. Every known culture does this to some extent. If women's work was actually recognized for its incredible contribution to the economy - beginning with childbirth and care - whole worlds would have to be rewritten, which isn't happening too fast. As you may have noticed. But I do think it's worse in the US than it is in other western cultures. (Well, Germany isn't so hot either from the recent reports.)
But all that said. I am a Canadian academic mother of two children, aged 8 & 6. I did have decent maternity leave provisions. And as far as all that stuff you're hearing from other people, anything you hear from someone who is not a mother, you can safely ignore. They just don't know.
Anything you hear from anyone who IS a mother should be not so much taken on board as saved for future reference. Because my experience was that people would say all these things to me too, when I was first pregnant; and it would freak me out because I just didn't have the frame of reference that would allow me to make sense of what they were saying. They were speaking a whole different language, with a whole set of referents I just didn't have - and I had no clue that this was so. So I kept hearing "sacrifice! burden! misery! oh the pain!" and, as I said, freaking out.
But what I was missing was the experience that allowed me to put it all in perspective. Having a child is the only time that you actually know when you will fall in love, before you've even met the person. Only you don't know it yet, because - duh - you haven't met the person yet; he/she hasn't been born.
And you know yourself that love changes everything. You just stop thinking in terms of sacrifice then. Sure you'll give some things up. And for me the first few months were very hard (I had PPD, a mild case). But the things you give up - and this is what you don't realise in advance - are going to turn out to not be particularly important to you. The rewards are much, much greater than the sacrifices, in my experience.
By the time the child is five, you can basically have your old life back if you want it. You will be a vastly different person by then.
Sorry to ramble. Don't worry. Yes, the work is enormous. Hair-raising. But everything worth doing is always work; and the rewards of this kind are so huge.
L.Bowman,
What a perfect ramble. Thanks. I remember people telling me roughly this long before we had a kid. Because I trust my close friends, I did believe them, but of course you still don't understand it until your there. You've put into words something that is pretty had to describe.
As a parent of one, it is funny how people with two or more warn you about the multiplying effect in terms of lifestyle change, but fail to mention that the loves multiplies too. I guess that brings us back to the "burden" discourse that started this post.
Dear L.Bowman--
Thank you for this perspective. It really rings true for me. I remember a few weeks back I posted the money.com estimation of the worth of mother's labor and many readers, including female students of mine, were totally outraged. Their view was that women "chose" to have children and so they chose to not get paid. If they want to get paid (missing premise) then they should do "real work." At least that was my view of their comments. And, the thing that gets me is that these are liberal students.
It bugs me that the left has adopted, to some extent, a view that children are parasites and parents are "breeders." Geez.
I want to move to Denmark!
Don't get me wrong; I am glad they are a party of truth-tellers and that they do their homework. I just wish they could inject some happy, joyous and plain old optimistic rhetoric into their projections about the future.
If the truth is that the world sucks, then aren't we just shoving so much manure down your throat if we say otherwise? And, I for one, am hopeful about the future. But better than crap is still sort of "meh".
That being said, I see no reason why discussing parenthood always has to be negative. Indeed, I've never noticed that sort of spiel until you brought it to my attention. Maybe being male and single has something to do with that.
that it's your fault you're knocked up and it is your load to carry.
Isn't it though? That is, I get the impression Spaz consented to the whole thing. And whose burden is it if not the parents'? Additionally, isn't it also their joy?
You are being set up to accept the notion that child care is your job, it's ALL your job, and any driblet of help you get from anywhere else is not a right, and you had better be pathetically grateful.
Who else could have that job? It's not my kid, and yes, if I babysit for you it's a favor and not a right. I see no reason that you should be pathetically grateful, but a thank you would be nice.
If women's work was actually recognized for its incredible contribution to the economy - beginning with childbirth and care - whole worlds would have to be rewritten
But, "the children are our future". That gets tossed out at nearly every election. Appealing to people via children is a big way to win them over. Or am I the only one who has noticed this? So the question becomes: ummm...don't we recognize it? I'm not gonna give you a friggin' medal for a job you chose to do, and which is your responsibility any damn way. How "can" we take responsibility away from the parents? We needn't make it sound so burdensome, but I don't see how our attitude towards the reality changes the reality, only the environment in which it dwells, which perhaps is deserving of some adjustments.
Feeling that I must respond to C. Ewing.
If mothers don't have children, the culture collapses in one generation. This is a simple calculation. So having children is an enormous gift that parents make to their culture. Parents are not the only ones who benefit from having children; the whole culture benefits because some people perform the labour of parenthood.
And this is recognized, but only rhetorically. It's true that the "children are our future!" rhetoric does get tossed out in every election. But it's not backed up in terms of actual funding AFTER the election, to make the raising of those children easier for the parents to do.
Here are some examples of concrete assistance that could be given to parents to make their labour of parenthood, undertaken not only on their own behalf but to the benefit of the whole society, easier:
- legislated maternity/paternity leave - still, astonishingly, not available in the USA
- subsidized, federally-funded, properly supervised and trained child care, so that parents, read mothers, who choose to do so can get back into the work force. Since no Western economy can actually function without women in the work force anymore, this is essential.
- decent and federally-funded medical care for mothers and children, so they don't go bankrupt bearing and raising their children
- drop - in "mother and child care" centers with a public health nurse on duty, where mothers can attend "mother's groups" and get basic education on child care (and meet other mothers, which will keep you sane, at least, it did me); routine medical tests and vaccination can be done on the kids (and mothers at need) and referrals made for those who need more; information will be available in written form on topics of interest to mothers and children; a counsellor will be on staff for mothers and children (invaluable to deal with post-partum depression, behaviour problems, that sort of thing); and a drop-in day care will be available so that parents have a place to leave the children, in safe, supervised, conditions, while they go run their errands, maybe get some exercise for the first time in six months, or sit in a cafe with a book for an hour or two.
These are the sorts of things that a culture that ACTUALLY honoured and respected child-rearing and understood the enormous service parents do for the whole community would gladly give to its citizens. The bulk of the benefit would go to mothers, because they're the ones who do the bulk of the child care.
Instead, we have this rhetoric of "choice", as in, everything a woman does is a personal selfish choice of no benefit to anyone but herself. To which I would pose the counter-question:
To whose benefit is it that women believe that they are simply being selfish when they have children, and that their choice is at beset tolerated by an indulgent culture?
I would say, the culture benefits, because if it can talk everyone into believing that women are selfish parasitical slugs having children for their own benefit alone, the culture doesn't have to pay for any of it, does it.
Only it does pay for it down the road, of course.
Well, families can appreciate kids, quite aside from their possible future usefulness. I'm very happy that I had kids. I sure love them and my grandkids.
I'm proud of my daughter who is managing a full on career and two children. She's on maternity leave now but will be back at work in September.
I would not wish the boredom of permanent stay at home momdom on her or any woman. I grew up the 50's; I remember how women's lives were wasted then. How they were told they were "lucky" because they did not have to work the way poor women did and could be homemakers and "work on their own schedules" and nonsense like that. How anyone wants to return to that era for middle class women I'll never know.
The ones who really amaze me are the home schoolers. Wow. Not only being with your kids all the time but educating them as well. That's pretty heroic, I suppose.
But I digress. Just grandmotherly ramblings.
The trade off always seems a bit off: my life for the child's
I'm a woman, a witch, a mother, and a grandmother. That is the trade. It's a fair one, but, at least in this society, that's the trade. I spoke last week with a young mother, an attorney with whom I work, who said, "The first month was hell. Why didn't anyone tell me the first month would be hell?" This is an educated woman with a lot of resources for help re: housecleaning, etc. and a v. supportive mother, etc. I said, "Sandy. I told you that you'd go a month w/o sleep." She said, "Yes, but I didn't believe you." You should have told me that it would be hell.
C. Ewing said: "I'm not gonna give you a friggin' medal for a job you chose to do, and which is your responsibility any damn way."
Why ever not? This seems to me just another way of saying that there's nothing commendable or praiseworthy in either (1) voluntarily making great sacrifices or (2) fulfilling one's responsibility at great cost to oneself and great benefit to others. So, we don't commend workers for doing good jobs; students for writing good essays; soldiers (nondrafted ones) for bravery; significant others for fidelity; and so on. How bizarre.
I'm not with C. on this one, but we only give rewards to those who do their job well. so the analogy would support giving medals to good mothers, not to all mothers.
Except perhaps for soldiers, whom we commend for what they do whether or not they do it well. But we give em medals for doing it well.
And i think we do commend mothers in exactly the same way. We do not thank them, but we talk frequently about what a good thing this is, how wonderful it is to be a mother, etc, ie we commend them. In fact, this is rather constant, both before and after birth (esp after).
But i suspect that Asp is reacting to the negative that she hears, and is paying not as much attention to the positive. I am sure she has heard a ton of congratulations (for what? An implied good, of course), many many comments of the 'This will be so special' 'It will go by too fast' etc etc, but it is the comments that reinforce her worries that speak to her the most, so those stick out. Even in some of the messages she reports here (like my own comment about moives) contain the positive seed. The nurse says 'you will see how selfish you are' which to be sure sounds like a criticism. But it is not, not really, it is a view of the future when you become totally giving. Or my comment about not seeing any movies. Its true. (Well, I did see Herbie Fully Loaded. I digress) But the important part was what came after 'And you wont care.' Why wont you care? Because other things will be more important to you, namely everything about your child.
Hanno:
I didn't expect you to concur. But thank you for clarifying.
Except perhaps for soldiers, whom we commend for what they do whether or not they do it well. But we give em medals for doing it well.
And the medal analogy is precisely the one I used. Also: simply because we thank soldiers for serving more or less constantly does not mean we ought to do so. Those are different statements.
Why ever not? This seems to me just another way of saying that there's nothing commendable or praiseworthy in either (1) voluntarily making great sacrifices or (2) fulfilling one's responsibility at great cost to oneself and great benefit to others. So, we don't commend workers for doing good jobs; students for writing good essays; soldiers (nondrafted ones) for bravery; significant others for fidelity; and so on. How bizarre.
I'm not saying there's nothing worthy of some degree of praise or respect, but as Hanno pointed out, feeding your child when it's hungry is not being a "good" mother. It's being a decent human being by not letting a child starve. And frankly: no, you don't deserve a damn thing for that.
Additionally, it does not necessarily follow that when you do something for society that society now owes you a damn thing.
Sure, we commend firefighters, and we do the same with our police officers (some of us do anyway) and even common persons when they do something above and beyond what can be expected. But since when is being a mother (note: I'm not saying a good, or excellent mother) now its own special case? Your life is not in danger every time you wake up and make breakfast. How then are these cases even proper comparisons?
1. The fact that it's voluntary means you did it of your own accord. You should be sacrificing for something you find to be worthy, and if it is worthy then I need not make any special note about it. A "good job" or "you go girl" might follow, but this is hardly the same as a societally backed festival in honor of your hard work. But wait, there's always mother's day.
2. Umm...it's your responsibility. So, no, I'm not going to give you praise for doing (as I stated previously) something you have already assumed as a given responsibility, and therefore obligation. I'm not going to give an extra tip to a waiter or waitress who just does a passable job. By sitting down I've agreed to the standard tip, which I will gladly pay if he or she is adequate. Above and beyond gets more. A poor job deserves less.
Hence, I'm still curious as to how motherhood is a special case that deserves automatic praise. I'm not readily convinced any of these do deserve it automatically.
And here's a question: cops are often in danger, and instead of doing an X number of months tour of duty, they may do it for twenty years. So why do they get such a bad shake by much of society yet soldiers get all the respect? That doesn't seem fair.
But C. Ewing, you're just repeating yourself, only using more words this time. I get that you think doing something voluntarily or fulfilling your responsibility deserves no commendation. But I don't understand your reasons.
On firefighters and cops: your examples, not mine. I deliberately included as examples "nonheroic" actions to complement the soldier one. So (a) you're criticizing me for a comparison I didn't make, and (b) rather astoundingly insinuating (unless I misread you) that a parent's work, because it's less dangerous than a cop's, is somehow less praiseworthy.
As I said: how bizarre.
Hanno--
Sure, the unknown produces anxiety. But, I wouldn't read too much into my post and surmise that I am only remembering the negative comments. The fact is that the negative commens are far more plentiful and predictable than the positive comments.
I think your own example is a fine one. You pointed out that I wouldn't see another movie for years, but you didn't add that it was a well worth it trade off. Btw, I don't go to the movies that often anyway; I can't imagine that this will ruin my life. But, the regular negative comments, untempered with the good, is a fairly pervasive phenomena.
My post dealt more with that reality than my own upcoming fears and anxieties, which plenty of other post have already covered.
C.Ewing--
I'm not saying there's nothing worthy of some degree of praise or respect, but as Hanno pointed out, feeding your child when it's hungry is not being a "good" mother. It's being a decent human being by not letting a child starve. And frankly: no, you don't deserve a damn thing for that.
When did the conversation take this turn? I fail to see how this is at all related to my original post.
Hence, I'm still curious as to how motherhood is a special case that deserves automatic praise. I'm not readily convinced any of these do deserve it automatically.
Who said this?
"I think your own example is a fine one. You pointed out that I wouldn't see another movie for years, but you didn't add that it was a well worth it trade off."
From my previous post:
" Hope you enjoyed the show! It will be the last one you see for about 10 years. But dont worry, you wont miss it."
I think that last part qualifies as 'its well worth the trade off.'
There is no denying the smirk behind the initial claim, that you wont see another movie for 10 years... but I dont think that is optimism vs pessimism, or burden talk. I think it vet vs rookie talk, Marine vs boot camp initiate talk, PhD vs incoming graduate student. Hence the smirk. The smirk comes with 'its worth it, if you are worthy.' But it is unnecessary to state, at least from the perspective to the vet.
A final note (from me I mean) about the rewards this society pays for huge sacrifices, however voluntary: why is it that nobody has noticed the obvious, that every other category of sacrificer mentioned - firefighters, cops, soldiers - are actually paid well enough to support a family for the work they do, and get pensions & medical insurance too? But mothers, far from getting paid, absorb a huge financial hit, their whole lives, for "taking the time off work" to be a mother.
Now THAT'S what I mean by acknowledging and supporting labour done on behalf of a society. It is PAID. Unless, of course, it's motherhood.
True, but then no one gets paid for their services to their own family, even if it benefits society. My wife does not get $50/hr for the carpentry work she does around the house, nor do I get money for taking care of the lawn, and no one gives us medical benefits, etc.
Aspazia-- I have not read through all the comments above (skimmed), but I think perhaps a tad more generosity of interpretation is due those who are giving you such grave warnings. As one person above did suggest, the negativity is the flip side of the romanticization that goes on surrounding all things motherhood (and parenthood more generally, but particularly motherhood). So, for instance, a nurse's talk about you realizing "how selfish you really were" seems to me a tad bit wishful thinking-- a reason more for pity than anger. When I hear parents say such things (and as a woman who has chosen not to raise children, I hear them ALL the time), I often find myself thinking this: here is a person who has all kinds of burdens (being hooked to small baby in manner of milking machine--as several of my friends with children have themselves described it-- really is a burden, no matter how much one loves the baby) I do not have. I too have burdens this person does not--they are just less obvious to whole world than a baby. But what the person telling me how selfish I am sees is, naturally enough, her own burdens, not mine. And she (almost always she not he) is in the meantime under a mountain of rhetoric telling her how this is supposed to be the "most wonderful time of her life" how glorious is the mountain top of motherhood once surmounted etc, etc. But then there's the cold hard truth that in a day to day fashion, sometimes it just sucks. And how easy it must be, I think to myself, for someone in that position to feel defensive--so they deflect, and what comes out is an accusation that people who choose not to raise children are "selfish". feh. To me it's just sad, not the cause for anger.
As for people who are childfree (like myself) saying any such thing, well, I certainly cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I can assure the commentator above who suggested that we are only but envious that such is deeply NOT the case for me. I can recall one and only one occasion on which I issued a warning to a soon-to-be parent. It was immediately after being, literally, present in the room when a dear friend gave birth to her child after forty eight hours of labor, and drugs they kept withholding in spite of her requests and administered only at the last possible moment (one of those irritating hospitals that had some notion that not having drugs='natural'=better in some sense definable without reference to health of woman giving birth or child-to-emerge). I was horrified at the amount of pain I'd just witnessed my friend undergo--an amount of pain in no way accurately reflected by the 'watch a woman give birth' videos one can obtain. And then there were all the things no one seems to talk about --like the smells in the room, which can be quite something else. So, after celebrating with the new mother, I went home & immediately called a male friend who was about to become a father and told him all about it, and the horrors of it. I did so for a very simple reason-- no one else had told him any such thing, and I was quite sure (knowing my friend) that he'd be in a much better position to actually be supportive of his spouse if he knew what this was actually like. And he was--joyfully, he called me a couple of weeks later after his child was born to tell me that, and to thank me, because he wasn't sure how he would have reacted if someone hadn't told him in advance and in detail what it all was really like.
So elitism, rasicism sexism classism is appeal when couched in pretty rhetoric to Idealistic young people maybe they need to take Logic classes and rhetoric dissection and maybe a class on disinformation and propaganda..Just because it sounds pretty does not mean it is good, humane or progressive conservative rhetoric hits hard to the selfishness in people while covering it with feel-good and emotive language like family values and nationalistic jingoism hidden in long words that sound smart.
Ok, I'll make this as brief as possible:
I get that you think doing something voluntarily or fulfilling your responsibility deserves no commendation. But I don't understand your reasons.
You didn't earn the praise. Example: some random person holds a door open for you, and you thank said person. "No problem", they reply. They did something that was not expected of them, and cannot be rightly assumed of them, and as such deserve something extra for their something extra. A person at a tourist booth gives you directions. You say thank you, and he/she says, "Just doing my job." And I say: precisely. This is a duty that was already accepted, and thus no praise seems necessary. So the question seems to be: why bother? Sure, perhaps you're just "being nice", but other than following the rote example of society, the way we program our speech and interactions, why are you really thanking them? For helping you? But that's their job. In some cultures you don't tip people. Why? Because they're just doing their job. Why do you feel the need for additional compensation? Why isn't the feeling that you're being a good parent enough? Why do you need society to pat you on the back? And why should we commend you for doing your damn job? As Hanno pointed out, perhaps a "good" job could earn praise, but that seems beside the point at this juncture.
Doing good should be its own reward. It's like a business donating to charity so they get a write up in the paper. Sure, they're still donating to charity, but it always brings up the question of: why? Is it because it was a good cause? Because they wanted publicity? Or was it some combination?
(a) you're criticizing me for a comparison I didn't make
I was going off on a tangent. My apologies. It shouldn't be interpreted as a criticism of you.
(b) rather astoundingly insinuating (unless I misread you) that a parent's work, because it's less dangerous than a cop's, is somehow less praiseworthy.
Indeed. Even cops who typically are not put in the line of danger can have it happen to them seemingly randomly. And they do it all while some segments of society are giving them nothing but grief for the aid they give. So yes, more hardship would seem to earn more praise, unless I'm just doing the math wrong. Of course a parent puts in more hours over eighteen years, so there's something to be said for that as well. But I'm not sure extra hours equals what mortal danger equals. It's possible that we're dealing with a matter of kind and not degree, but this is probably getting more detailed than we need at this time.
As I said: how bizarre.
You're entitled to apply whatever adjective you like. You can call it tangy if you prefer.
If mothers don't have children, the culture collapses in one generation.
And? What does that have to do with earning praise?
So having children is an enormous gift that parents make to their culture. Parents are not the only ones who benefit from having children; the whole culture benefits because some people perform the labour of parenthood.
I think you're totally missing the process of the act. People don't generally think, "I'm going to help society by having a baby!" Let me present an analogy here:
You're walking down the street and drop $5. A homeless person comes along and picks up the money and is able to buy a meal with the money. Homeless person is quite pleased by this. Does homeless person owe you a thank you? Should said homeless person praise you? Should he or she award you a medal for this action? No. Why? Because you had no intention of aiding said homeless person.
The same is true with parenthood. The intention (if I'm reading most parents right) is for your own needs, your own goods, your own desires or because you made a mistake, but want to keep the child anyway. It's out of personal desires or a feeling of moral obligation, and in no way is intended as a boon to society. As such, why should we thank you for something you never intended to do in the first place? That's my question here.
"Rewarding" work doesn't pay, or it pays less in proportion to how rewarding it is. Look at public school teacher's salaries vs. sanitation workers, journalism vs. advertising, academic science vs corporate r&d. Zero seems about right for motherhood by that scheme.
i.e. in a free market, which is yet another reason why free markets are nasty.
Oh and to answer the question at the end of the post: Yes! The conventions must compound it enormously! Gosh, I wonder if Foucault ever would have had days like this if he'd been pregnant. Probably. It's a very hard time to be a Foucaultian, I hear. Expect to swing all the way to Western analytic and back. And there's no upside to how it will look on your CV.
Commenting by HaloScan
