Showing posts with label glorification of parenthood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label glorification of parenthood. Show all posts

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Keep Running (it prevents thinking)

Sometimes I have this thought about people who have kids and I wonder if it is just my own prejudice or if I am on to something. My thought is that many people have kids because they are lazy and want an easy way to create a life for themselves. They don't have anything interesting going on, and are too lazy to put real thought or effort into creating a meaningful life for themselves. Becoming a parent is an easy way to create an instant sense of purpose in their lives.

This thought occurs to me frequently when I observe the lifestyles of people with children. The constant on-the-go, hyperactive, rat-on-a-treadmill, day-in-day-out doing doing doing, running running running from dawn until dusk, keeps peoples' focus permanently off themselves, off the greater good, off introspection, off the pursuit of self actualization, off personal, intellectual and spiritual growth. Those who have children would argue that being a parent is a means to self-actualization, achieving a higher purpose in life and contributing to the greater good. Of course it's easy to maintain this idea when it's so heavily reinforced in our pronatalist culture. But I disagree with this on a fundamental level.

The fact is, in thinking objectively about all the people in my life who are parents, my assessment is that aside from raising children, they have nothing else going on. They are busy, busy, busy and doing, doing, doing, but what does all this busyness and doing amount to? It amounts to expending one's entire life energies solely to raise a child who will grow up to become a parent who will be busy, busy, busy, doing, doing doing and the cycle repeats itself ad infinitum. And for what purpose? What purpose does all this serve aside from keeping humanity going?

Keeping humanity going is seen as the greatest purpose in life and parents are ascribed hero status for doing their share toward contributing to this most selfless of goals. But for the sake of argument, I would like to ask a question which never gets asked: why do we assume that the continuation of the human species is a heroic goal? Or even a worthwhile goal? Are humans so egocentric and self important that we cannot imagine a world without ourselves, or see how much of our planet would benefit from a reduction in our numbers? Do we really believe that the earth would cease to exist without us in it?

Even if one ascribes to the idea that continuing the human species is important, the world is already severely overpopulated. Environmental resources are strained. The earth is overheated and polluted. Ice caps are melting. Sea levels are rising. There are millions upon millions of poor and starving human beings inhabiting our planet, many in our own country. Do we really need to add more? Given the fact that the earth is teetering on the edge of extinction thanks to mankind and the exploding population, perhaps the mandate that we each replicate ourselves is not only outdated, it's dangerous to our very existence.

The parental rat-on-a-treadmill existence may keep minds occupied, calendars booked, mini vans running, wallets emptied and consumerism in high gear, but aside from that, I think the question really needs to be asked of what the greater purpose of all this really is and why we are so easily brainwashed into the idea that reproduction is the highest of human aspirations. In reality, having children is the path of least resistance, of greatest reinforcement and when all is said and done, it's no great accomplishment. So why do we continue to treat it like it is?

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Moms on the Dole

Since motherhood is not already valued enough in our culture, Salary.com added a "Mom Salary Wizard" to their web site, so that moms can boost their self-esteem even further and get even more positive reinforcement by seeing how much they would be paid if they received a salary. The site will even print out a paycheck for them (presumably to give to their husbands to make them appreciate them more). Thanks to my friend Matt for forwarding this to me. Give it a whirl and let me know what you think.

Hm, if moms actually got paid this much money, I might decide to change careers. (just kidding)

In all seriousness, this is ridiculous. As Matt said in his e-mail to me, "This really irritates me. Have you done a blog post about this? I'm sure you must have. It's just so ridiculous. People CHOOSE to have children, so how is this conversation even justified? It's like getting paid to mow your own lawn or pursue a hobby."

Good point, Matt. In fact, I'd like to have a salary calculator too to figure out what all my unpaid contributions to the world are worth. This blog alone must be worth big bucks, right?

Oooh, and I just noticed something interesting on this calculator. If you look closely, under the calculator, there is a little link that says "What about Dads?", so you can click that link and calculate what a dad is worth in salary. Bad news, ladies. Gender inequality in the workplace reigns supreme even in the the domestic sphere. The basic salary range for a Mom without changing any of the defaults is $68,027 - $181,273. The basic range for a Dad is $71,090 - $186,375.

Surely a man invented this calculator.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

What's Wrong with this Picture?

Okay, people, I know I pick on OK! Magazine a lot but honestly, how can I help it? This rag deserves it like no other and gives me plenty of fodder for this blog. Just check out their latest installment of celebrity baby/mommy obsessing featuring the deliriously happy, beautiful and glowing, unmarried, 17-year-old Jamie Spears with her new bastard child. As you read the article, ask yourself these questions: what message does this article (and photos) send to teenage girls about unmarried, teenage pregnancy? How is pregnancy and childbirth portrayed? Do you think it's a realistic portrayal? (Pay particular attention to the sections I highlighted in blue italics).

"WORLD EXCLUSIVE: MEET BABY MADDIE!

Since giving birth on June 19 to baby girl Maddie Briann Aldridge, Jamie Lynn Spears has taken to doing what any good first time mom would do — making sure her brand new daughter has everything she needs.

And, in an exclusive interview and photoshoot, the younger sister of Britney Spears tells OK! that being away from the shining lights of Hollywood is making it all easier to learn the ins and outs of first-time motherhood. "Around here, everyone has the same focus," Jamie Lynn tells OK!. "The focus is family, and that's a good way to live."

The 17-year-old actress opens up to OK! about everything — from taking parenting classes to life inside the new home she shares with Maddie and boyfriend Casey Aldridge, to her first experience with labor pains."They'd told me it would be an eight- to 12-hour labor, and I was ready to have the baby in three to four hours," Jamie Lynn tells OK!. "I had a perfect pregnancy and a perfect delivery. I was very blessed."

While the former Zoey 101 star and her fiancé have not yet set a date for their wedding, the couple remains closer than ever. Jamie Lynn, who tells OK! that while her labor was induced, she gave birth naturally and without complications, says that Casey was the one person she wanted in the delivery room with her.

"Once I got in there, my doctor was just so calm and so good it was not bad at all," she says. "I was just talking to Casey. And you know what's so weird? I was asking him if he was okay. He was like, 'Yeah.' We were both so excited."

A baby nursery is set up for little Maddie at the other end of the house, but for now her proud parents like having her next to them at night, so she sleeps in a bassinet in the same room as Jamie Lynn and Casey.

"She is very good," says Jamie Lynn. "She'll feed every two or three hours. When she wakes up in the middle of the night, I'll feed her and she goes right back to sleep. There's no screaming and crying."

The proud mama continues, "We get up in the morning, and she gets her little bath. Then I get my bath. We have a routine, and I love routines. I've worked one out with her, and we're happy going about our little life."
_______________________________________________________

So by way of summary: Jamie Lynn, despite being an unmarried teenager - essentially a child herself - is a "good mom", whose focus is exactly where it should be - on family. Her life is the picture of perfection - a perfect pregancy, and childbirth was a piece of cake - a real breeze with no complications and - an "exciting" affair with no drugs required! Best of all, she is gloriously happy with the baby's father and having a child has brought them closer together than ever. Most amazingly, she has one of the only babies known to man that never screams or cries! It's almost as though Jamie Lynne has a fairy godmother who waved a magic wand over her head and sprinkled her with fairy dust!

Fairy dust indeed! The editors of this rag should be thrown in prison for the messages they are conveying to young girls and for spinning such a disgrace into an exciting "world exclusive". It is exactly these messages that result in a society where young girls are making pregnancy pacts and becoming pregnant in droves - celebrating unwed, underaged motherhood. Maybe I am showing my age, but it wasn't that long ago that it was a disgrace for an unwed teen to become pregnant and it was something one tried to avoid at all costs. Pregnancy was something to fear and worry about. It was the enemy. Becoming of age, getting an education and getting married were the normal order of events before considering having children. Now, unmarried, pregnant teens like Jamie Spears are held up as examples of perfection in girlhood!

Well, all I can say is - THANK GOD I don't have any children. Especially girls.