Pipe Down, Moms - You're Already on the Payroll

Every once in awhile it rises to the surface again - the idea that moms should be paid, or at the minimum that were they paid, they would earn in the six figures, based on everything they do and all the hours they put in.  These types of assessments are uplifting and empowering to moms, who feel overworked and undervalued and who, I suspect, are coming to grips with the harsh reality that the cost/benefit analysis of being a mom is slanted severely against their favor.

The most recent exhaltation of maternal worth comes from Wendy Luhabe, an influential South African business woman, who has taken it upon herself to publicly declare that mothers should be paid a salary equal to 10% of their husbands' income, to stay at home with their kids.  You can read the article here (thank you to Cameron for sending me the link), but in summary, these are her arguments:

1.  Paying moms a salary makes them feel valued, and therefore makes the choice to have children one which is free of resentment.

2.  Motherhood is the most important contribution to the world and should therefore be valued.  Since money is the currency used to demonstrate value, mothers should be paid 10% of their husband's earnings.

3.  Women who choose to have children need support so that they can do so joyfully and not dump their children on nannies.

4.  Creating a society where children are brought up properly by their mothers will create a much more stable and healthy society.

I cannot speak specifically to the value of motherhood in South Africa, but let me address Ms. Luhabe's arguments from an American perspective.

1.  In America, as in most cultures, motherhood is not only valued, it is seen as as woman's ultimate achievement and the pinacle of her existence.  In fact, in most cases, womanhood is equated with motherhood, so that women who cannot (or choose not to be) mothers are pitied, judged and made to feel that they are deficient, unwhole and unfeminine.  If anyone has cause for feelings of resentment, it is the childless and childfree women, who are seen as much less than their maternal counterparts.

How is motherhood valued?  Let us count the ways.  Women are encouraged to have children.  The moment a woman announces her pregnancy, lavish praise and celebration is heaped upon her.  She instantly becomes the center of attention wherever she goes.  She is repeatedly told how beautiful, glowing and radiant she is.  Parties and thrown and gifts are showered upon her. 

Once the child is born, she enters into the Mommy Club in which she has a ready circle of supportive friends who all validate her very existence.   Adding a child to her family also bestows a number of financial benefits on the mom, not available to those without kids.  She gets a substantial tax break on her income tax bill.  She gets to fully utilize her local property taxes by using the public school system.  She gets special treatment and discounts from businesses who go out of their way to be "family-friendly".  If she lives in suburbia, her family can take advantage of any number of activities and events that are geared toward families with kids, while those without kids are unlikely to find many (if any) activities geared toward them.

And let's not forget the most important "pay" a mom receives - the joy of having a child.  After all, women do not have children to selflessly contribute to the world.  They have them for all the joy, love and personal satisfaction they believe they will get from the experience.   Women who argue that they should be paid a salary to have kids are unknowingly admitting that the joy and satisfaction they enjoy from having children isn't enough to make the drudgery worth it - which, by the way, is the same argument I have been advancing in this blog from day one.

2.  Being that the world is overpopulated, and there are already far more people on earth than the planet can sustain, I would have to disagree with the persistent message that motherhood is the most important contribution to the world.  In fact, I would argue that what we need is a reduction in the number of women breeding.  We need to encourage people to take care of the people already populating our world, instead of adding more destructive, polluting consumers to a planet teetering on the verge of extinction.  Instead of paying women to be stay-at-home mothers, let's pay people to make meaningful, worthwhile contributions to the world that actually benefit everybody and the planet itself - for example, adoption, working to end poverty and homelessness, environmental activism...and the list goes on.  Breeding is not a positive contribution to the world.  It is a destructive detriment and it should most certainly not be rewarded with monetary compensation.  In fact, I will go farther and argue that those who breed should be heavily fined, with the money raised by said fines going to people and organizations which better the world.

3.  See my reply in #1 above.  Women already receive an abundance of validation, support and financial incentives to have children. 

4.  While I agree that it is important for children to be brought up properly in stable households, there are many stay-at-home moms who have no parenting skills and no business raising children.  It is not a given that all mothers are saintly, benevolent beings and that the best environment for a child is at home with his mother.  Almost every day, in my travels to and from work, during my visits to the bank and supermarkets, I witness first-hand mothers who treat their children with an intensity of seething hostility that I would not wish heaped upon a convicted felon.  Many of these women are stay-at-home moms who are boiling over with resentment, exhaustion and frustration (and I am sure regret) from the spawn they are saddled with.

Finally, a message to would-be moms.  I have said this before, and I will say it again:  If you don't like the idea of a job with endless work, sleepless nights, non-stop crying and screaming, financial strain, endless hours of overtime and no pay, it's very simple:  don't have kids.  Nobody is putting a gun to your head.  You can choose to do something different.  And ladies, if you do decide to have kids, do us all a favor and don't come back later complaining that you are saddled with endless work, sleepless nights, non-stop crying and screaming, financial strain, endless hours of overtime and no pay.  You knew what the job entailed when you accepted it, so if you are resentful about the choice you made, suck it up and accept that you'll be living with that resentment for a long time. 

And please, don't ask for a salary.

Sexy. Superhuman. Mom.

The other day, I was sitting in a waiting room reading a magazine. The Oprah show was on the t.v. and her guest was Christina Aguilera. So I watched for a bit. Oprah asked Christina if she has enjoyed her "break" from music and Christina talked about what she's been up to, most notably becoming a mom. Listen to Christina describe how motherhood has transformed her - she's sexier now! She miraculous! She's superhuman! She makes it sound like reproducing is some tremendous accomplishment - a pinacle of human achievement, instead of the mundane, ordinary, base act it really is.

I am happy for people who truly enjoy whatever it is that they have undertaken in life, but I think celebrities do a real injustice to women by portraying motherhood in these kinds of over-the-top, rapturous terms. The fact is, all living creatures reproduce. It is not an achievement. It is not superhuman. It is not miraculous. It is ordinary. It is expected. Billions upon billions of people do it. Sand fleas do it. Garden slugs do it.

I would argue that to not reproduce is extraordinary. To not succumb to societal pressure is an achievement. To minimize one's carbon footprint (instead of multiplying it) should be applauded. To take one's energies and direct them toward making a positive difference in the world is truly admirable. Ironically, Oprah herself is the prime example of what a childfree-by-choice person can accomplish, and yet she brushes her childfree status under the rug and kisses up to mommies at every opportunity.

Anyway, here's the clip. Let me know what you think. Christina's effusive gushing over motherhood begins at the 2:45 mark.

Jillian on the Hot Seat

Fitness guru Jillian Michaels is in hot water with moms over a recent comment she made in an article in Women's Health Magazine and now she's doing some serious damage control (and from the looks of it, a bit of backpedaling too).

In the article, she commented on her feelings about pregnancy: "I'm going to adopt. I can't handle doing that to my body. Also, when you rescue something, it's like rescuing a part of yourself."

Immediately, the media pounced on her, sensationalizing her comments by stating she wouldn't get pregnant because it would ruin her body. Of course, this sent moms everywhere in a collective hissy-fit. How could she choose a beautiful body over MOTHERHOOD!?? What kind of woman would put her looks and physique above pregnancy and childbirth - the pinacle of womanhood???!!! What a horrible, selfish creature!!!

On and on it went - I saw this story featured on every celebrity/entertainment and morning news show I flipped past. It was the hot topic of the week.

And there in the middle of the uproar is Jillian, steadfastly defending herself and expressing hurt feelings over being misinterpreted. Misinterpreted? Yes. Apparently, when she said, "I can't handle doing that to my body" she didn't mean ruining her body. She meant that she has some serious, deep-seated body issues that make it impossible for her to handle pregnancy. Okay, Jillian, we'll give you a pass because we know you're really getting slammed and you have a lucrative empire to protect, but truth be told, you're not fooling us.

The fact is, pregnancy DOES ruin women's bodies. Sure, the media likes to create sensational frenzies over the beautiful post-baby celebrity bods, but any real woman with two brain cells in her head knows that these women are freak-of-nature exceptions to the rule - privileged women with private chefs, nutritionists, personal trainers, nannies and unlimited access to plastic surgery. The vast majority of women do not look like Halle Berry or Heidi Klum after giving birth. They look like this.

Let's not forget that in Jillian's case, her rockin' physique is her livelihood, so it seems not only forgiveable, but completely reasonable and prudent that she forego wrecking her body with pregnancy and childbirth.

And here's an angle that nobody's taken yet: how about some praise for Jillian for stating that she will adopt - a far more generous and selfless act than bringing another human being into this already-overcrowded world? I find it very telling that no media outlet has touched that part of her quote. Her comment on adoption makes her sound nice, and good, and selfless - in other words, not the vain, selfish, narcissist they want to make her out to be. Nice, good and selfless are boring but vain, selfish narcissism sell lots of magazines.

Our culture is so warped when it comes to celebrity. And it is even more warped when it comes to motherhood, putting both on ridiculously high pedestals that are just begging to be toppled over. It's time we take celebrities AND mothers off their damned pedestals and stop holding celebs accountable as model mothers. Or in Jillian's case, as potential mother.

Just Your Typical Mom

Guess what the big celebrity news is right now? Heidi Klum strutting her glorious post-baby bod down the Victoria's Secret catwalk. See, ladies - it's just like they always tell us - pregnancy and childbirth is the best thing a woman can do. It makes her BETTER. It makes her more beautiful. It makes her sexier and more glamorous. You can have all the babies you want and still be a hot chick - just look at Heidi. She is proof it is true!

So what are you waiting for?! Pop out those babies! We guarantee you - no stretch marks, no droopy boobs, no weight gain, no big hips.

Whatsamatter? Don't you believe me?

Inquiring Minds Need to Know...

In the interest of keeping you all informed about what's going on in the celebrity world...

Fine, Freaky Celebs

There are some topics that I just can't stop myself from writing about over and over again because they perpetually fascinate me. Let's see...there's the "obnoxious parents with kids disrupting peaceful environments" (God knows how I love to harp on that topic) and my other favorite, the "media obsession with celebuspawn". Well, given that the Messiahs of all celebrities, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, just added yet 2 more anklebiters to their brood, I thought I would write about them today.

First, let me say that I realize that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are freakishly good-looking. They are the kind of people you just look and say, "how on earth is it possible for any person to be that gorgeous, let alone TWO people in one household?" Their gorgeousness is blinding. It makes sense, then, that the public is curious about what their spawn would look like. After all, as far as babies go, they just don't come any cuter than little Shiloh. I mean, just LOOK at this kid.

Having said that, let's get real here. A newborn baby isn't all that interesting to look at and it's pretty much impossible to tell the degree to which a newborn will eventually become a freak of nature in the looks department. With the exception of possibly hair and skin color, newborn babies pretty much look alike and are non-descript. Take the aforementioned gorgeous Shiloh. Here she is on her first People magazine cover when she was a newborn.

I would argue that she is no more gorgeous as a newborn than any other baby I've seen. In fact, if I was to be completely objective, I'd say that I was more gorgeous as a newborn!

While we're on the subject of freakish celebs, have you heard the rumor about little Suri Cruise (the daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes)? For years, rumors have circulated that Tom Cruise is gay and his marriage to Katie Holmes is an arranged sham. Most people know that Tom Cruise is a rabid Scientologist. The rumor about Suri is that she was conceived via invitro fertilization using the frozen sperm of late founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard.

Wait - before you laugh too hard, take a look at little Suri and tell me which man she most resembles.

Still laughing?

Beautiful Post-Baby Bods

One of the many ways pronatalism asserts itself in our day-to-day lives is through the media's relentless obsession with celebrity pregnancy and childbearing. When a celebrity is pregnant, the paparazzi feverishly chase her all over creation to capture the money shots - those lucrative "baby bump" photos. After giving birth, the obsession shifts to the baby itself. What magazine will get the first shot? Who will get the exclusive? Just how gorgeous IS that baby?

After everyone's seen the baby, we hold our collective breath as we wait on pins and needles to find out the God-awful name the baby was given (let's see, will it be worse than Apple, Moxie Crime Fighter, Kyd, Sage Moonblood, Pilot Inspektor?). Then, as the happy couple settles into parenthood bliss there is only one final place to turn the camera - to the celebrity's post-pregnancy bod.

Sad, Regretful Baby-less Celebs

Today I thought it would be interesting to spend a little time on the despicable way the media promotes the message that motherhood is the ultimate fulfilment in life and women who opt out of motherhood are destined to a life of unhappiness and regret. Of course, you, my childfree friends and sympathizers, and me know this message is complete and utter hogwash and recognize it as part of the rampant pronatalism designed to keep women bound to their reproductive roles at the expense of other fulfilling endeavors. We are completely innundated with this message from every direction, every second of our lives, but magazine covers like this illustrate it so blantantly and obnoxiously, they just beg for discussion.

I came across this magazine this morning while waiting in line at the supermarket. Just look at the cover...a small off-to-the-side photo of a despondent-looking Jennifer Aniston looking away wisftully as the caption reads, "39 & Wishing she'd had Brad's Babies". Her hair is stringy and she's not looking her best. Meanwhile, a beautiful, radiant and obviously deliriously happy Angelina Jolie, gets a huge, center-stage photo. Her photo triumphs over Jen's and she looks the most beautiful she ever has. Her caption reads, "Angie's Joy, Jen's Pain...After 3 years, ANGELINA'S got it all While JEN'S Still Tortured by "the Woman who Ruined my Life and Keeps Wondering What if..."

Ever since Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt broke up, rumor has had it that their break-up was due to their differences on having children - Brad wanted them, Jen did not. Whether this rumor is true or not doesn't matter. What's interesting is that underneath all this focus on Jen and Brad's breakup, and Angie's subsequent reign as Goddess Mother, is this message:

"See, Jen. This is what you get for being a selfish bitch and not fulfilling your duties as a woman. You wanted it all, didn't you? You wanted to have fun in the sun, pursue your acting career, be caught up in all the Hollywood glamour and be a big hot shot, maybe make it big in the movies and you sacrificed having babies (horrors!!!) so you could be so self-centered! Well you got what you deserved because look - ANGELINA wasn't selfish - she had babies like she was supposed to and LOOK AT HER! She's more beautiful than you, she's far happier, a bigger star than you AND she got BRAD PITT! What do YOU have? You're still single and can't seem to keep a man and now you're sorry, aren't you? You are a sad, pathetic excuse for a woman!"

Oh, and while we're here, let's also take notice of the rest of the this magazine cover because the Angie and Jen story apparently wasn't enough baby-obsessing for OK Magazine this month. We have Jamie Lynn Spears and her beau with the caption "Ready for Baby" (a pretty upbeat tone, don't you think, considering she's 16, unmarried and pregnant?) and underneath, a smily photo of Anna Nicole's daughter and her father, Larry Birkhead, showing that even when mommy celebrities are dead, we must still obsess over their babies.

So in addition to providing enough disgust to make me want to barf up my breakfast today, magazine covers like this beg the question...is there NOTHING ELSE going on in the celebrity world other than the glorification of breeding? Are the stars capable of nothing more interesting to entertain us than screwing and popping out their spawn?

And the scariest question of all: Who's responsible for this fixation on celebrity breeding? Is it the media, or is it US?