mommy dearest
The world of women in politics is doing quite impressively these last few days. Yes, Nancy Pelosi, I'm looking at you, but also at Ms. Ségolène Royal, who is making her way up the French political ladder. American and French Revolutions, Part Deux? Perhaps, perhaps. And if not a revolution (though it is an interesting connection), then an exciting change. Whee!-- or rather, Wiii!
But that's not my whole point here. I think it's interesting to note that Ms. Pelosi is (quite famously) the mother of five children, and as I learned just now, Ms. Royal is the mother of four children. Though this is only the case of two unique women, these two women are also some of the most influential women (in politics, at the very least) in their countries, and possibly the world.
The first thing that comes to mind is dispensing of all of these "POWERFUL WOMEN ARE COLD AND CRUEL AND UNMOTHERLY!" ideas, which claim that for a woman to have power, she must have short, cropped hair, dress only in suits, not be married (though if she's with a woman, that's okay, because DUH lesbians are LIKE MEN) and most certainly not have any children. To be powerful, a woman must essentially behave like a male bachelor, is what common sterotyping seems to convey.
Then what do we make of Pelosi and Royal, who have a total of nine children between them? Does mothering teach skills of power, organization, leadership and diplomacy? Is the secret to leadership motherhood? Even more interesting still, both Pelosi and Royal have seemed to "embrace" their mom-statuses, the NYT going as far to write about Royal: "Campaigning on a platform of “rupture” with the status quo, she has also capitalized on her femininity while accusing her competitors of male chauvinism. “Gazelles,” she said last May, “run faster than elephants.”" Then this quote, too: "She has also been criticized by her rivals for playing the woman card. At a rally in Paris last Monday, she quoted Mr. Strauss-Kahn as having said after their final debate that “she would have done better to stay at home instead of reading from her recipe cards.”" By acknowledging their femininity, are they trying to show the world that women are powerful? Are they anticipating the rebuttal they are bound--as women in positions of power--to get?
What's more, five kids and four kids is a lot, if I do say so myself. Four kids? FIVE kids? Maybe it's because they learned how to be good multi-taskers, or maybe they had so many kids because they were always ambitious. But how does this dampen the idea that women who want to "go far" should have less children?
When my Mount Holyoke interviewer and I were talking, she made an off-hand comment about having to "choose one or the other." One mother I babysit for was asking me about my future career plans, and I mentioned teacher, possible journalist, maybe even going to law school after college. She perked up: "I was a lawyer. But then I stopped practicing law and got another job as an opthamalogist because I wasn't being a good mother. Teaching's a good way to go, then you can still see your kids, if you have them."
It's a complicated balance to strike, but I guess, amidst all this muddle of thought and pondering, the one thing that shines through is the talent of these women, to handle so many children and succeed so well, and to perhaps say to the world that having so many kids isn't the impediment we always assumed it was.
But that's not my whole point here. I think it's interesting to note that Ms. Pelosi is (quite famously) the mother of five children, and as I learned just now, Ms. Royal is the mother of four children. Though this is only the case of two unique women, these two women are also some of the most influential women (in politics, at the very least) in their countries, and possibly the world.
The first thing that comes to mind is dispensing of all of these "POWERFUL WOMEN ARE COLD AND CRUEL AND UNMOTHERLY!" ideas, which claim that for a woman to have power, she must have short, cropped hair, dress only in suits, not be married (though if she's with a woman, that's okay, because DUH lesbians are LIKE MEN) and most certainly not have any children. To be powerful, a woman must essentially behave like a male bachelor, is what common sterotyping seems to convey.
Then what do we make of Pelosi and Royal, who have a total of nine children between them? Does mothering teach skills of power, organization, leadership and diplomacy? Is the secret to leadership motherhood? Even more interesting still, both Pelosi and Royal have seemed to "embrace" their mom-statuses, the NYT going as far to write about Royal: "Campaigning on a platform of “rupture” with the status quo, she has also capitalized on her femininity while accusing her competitors of male chauvinism. “Gazelles,” she said last May, “run faster than elephants.”" Then this quote, too: "She has also been criticized by her rivals for playing the woman card. At a rally in Paris last Monday, she quoted Mr. Strauss-Kahn as having said after their final debate that “she would have done better to stay at home instead of reading from her recipe cards.”" By acknowledging their femininity, are they trying to show the world that women are powerful? Are they anticipating the rebuttal they are bound--as women in positions of power--to get?
What's more, five kids and four kids is a lot, if I do say so myself. Four kids? FIVE kids? Maybe it's because they learned how to be good multi-taskers, or maybe they had so many kids because they were always ambitious. But how does this dampen the idea that women who want to "go far" should have less children?
When my Mount Holyoke interviewer and I were talking, she made an off-hand comment about having to "choose one or the other." One mother I babysit for was asking me about my future career plans, and I mentioned teacher, possible journalist, maybe even going to law school after college. She perked up: "I was a lawyer. But then I stopped practicing law and got another job as an opthamalogist because I wasn't being a good mother. Teaching's a good way to go, then you can still see your kids, if you have them."
It's a complicated balance to strike, but I guess, amidst all this muddle of thought and pondering, the one thing that shines through is the talent of these women, to handle so many children and succeed so well, and to perhaps say to the world that having so many kids isn't the impediment we always assumed it was.