The Mommy Wars Revisited

[Athena]

Just a couple of days ago, the New York Times published an article the called The Mommy Wars: Special Campaign Edition (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02mother.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=mommy%20wars%20special%20campaign%20edition&st=cse&oref=slogin&oref=slogin). While the topic has been brought into the spotlight by Gov. Palin's decision to accept the VP spot despite having 5 kids, one of whom is a special needs infant and one of whom is a pregnant teen, the debate is one we're well familiar with.

What's interesting to me is that it is driven by mothers themselves. Why is the way an individual runs their family any of our business? I've heard working mothers call stay-at-home-mothers lazy or submissive; I've heard stay-at-home-mothers call working moms selfish or irresponsible. Perhaps it's one of those "you're not a mother so you couldn't possibly get it," types of things, but I just don't see the relevance.

Do you believe a female candidate's parenting choices belong under scrutiny? Why don't we do the same with male candidates with children?

[WryBread]

I suppose women are at each other's throats over this because both choices have bad as well as good aspects and humans need to feel good about themselves. So each camp soothes their own bruises by pointing out the faults in the other's choice. It's really pretty immature.

It's like parents calling nonparents selfish. Not necessarily.

As for Palin's childcare choices, her older daughter does seem to be an argument against abstinence education! Her baby, well, I wouldn't have brought a retarded child into this world, but the Palins' are rich enough to provide him with the best care and protection for his entire life.

I see no reason to ask about Palin's childcare arrangements. We aren't asking Obama about his.

[Athena]

I suppose women are at each other's throats over this because both choices have bad as well as good aspects and humans need to feel good about themselves. So each camp soothes their own bruises by pointing out the faults in the other's choice. It's really pretty immature.

It's like parents calling nonparents selfish. Not necessarily.

As for Palin's childcare choices, her older daughter does seem to be an argument against abstinence education! Her baby, well, I wouldn't have brought a retarded child into this world, but the Palins' are rich enough to provide him with the best care and protection for his entire life.

I see no reason to ask about Palin's childcare arrangements. We aren't asking Obama about his.

Well, I understand why...In short - women are petty and nosey. :p

Seriously, though - You'll rarely hear men have conversations like this, or judge each other regarding how they handle their children. Part of this is because men simply have less child care responsibility, generally. But it seems to me that they have less interest in general when it comes to the personal choices of their counterparts. I do think, however, that women help drive these stereotypes by exercising the double-standard. Like you said, we aren't asking Obama.

As for absintence-only education - Yahoo reported yesterday that, at least at one point, Palin supported mandatory contraceptive education for all teenagers. Perhaps she's changed her mind, but even being against contraceptive education in schools does not necessarily mean you're against it at home...It simply means you believe it to be a subject best left for mom and dad. I disagree, but whatever.

[WryBread]

Here is a quote from "The Egg and I," one of the funniest books ever written and by one of the best writers the U.S. has ever produced, Betty MacDonald.

"We met the Swensen brothers about a week or so after we moved to the ranch, and as I watched Bob's friendship with them and with other Indians grow, I realized why it is so much easier for a man to adjust himself to new surroundings and people than for a woman. Men are so much less demanding in friendship. A woman wants her friends to be perfect. She sets a pattern, usually a reasonable facsimilie of herself, lays a friend out on the pattern and worries and prods at any little qualities which do not coincide with her own image. She simply won't be bothered with anything less than ninety percent congruity and will accept the ninety percent only if the other ten percent is shaping up nicely and promises accurate conformity within a short while. Friends with garing lumps or unsmoothable rough places are cast off like ill-fitting garments, and even if this means that the woman has no friends at all, she happier than with some imperfect being for whom she would have to make allowances.

"A man has a friend, period. He acquires this particular friend because they both like to hunt ducks. The fact that the friend discourses entirely in four letter words, very seldom washes, chews tobacco and spits at random, is drunk a good deal of the time, and hates women, in no way affects the friendship. If the man notices these flaws in the perfection of his friend, he notices them casually as he does his friend's height, the color of his eyes, the width of his shoulders; and the friendship continues at an even temperature for years and years and years."

Of course, she is exaggerating, but there is some truth in what she says!

[Athena]

That's hilarious. I don't know how accurate it is, though. Check out this article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308075354.htm) which reports on a study that found that women are much more flexible than men are when making friends. According to the study of 10,000 by the University of Manchester, men have more of a "what's in it for me" take on friendships. :p

[WryBread]

"Adding to the bad news for male prestige, the study confirms the stereotype that men are likely to base their friendship on social drinking."

Guess it used to be duck hunting!