Of course it's okay to have some negative feelings about maternity. The fact that we apparently need a psychotherapist to tell us this is sad and revealing.
Great piece!! I think part of it too is that we don't culturally see motherhood as a topic worthy of serious examination. From art to novels to research, it's long been seen as something not that interesting or deep. This is changing, thank goodness, but it was that way for a long, long time. When something isn't considered worthy of inquiry or exploration, overly simplistic ideas fill the spaces in our consciousness and mothers feel like something is wrong if their feelings/experiences are complex!
I really, really appreciate your analysis and insights. You have a gift for seeing beyond the surface to identifying actual dynamics at play. Glad I stumbled on your work!
(Now, time to close the laptop so I can prod grumpy kids out of bed and into getting ready for the day, which I'm moderately annoyed about, as I am every time I have to stop reading and go do mundane parenting tasks. But that doesn't mean that this entire mothering project is for the birds. ☺️ )
this is fantastic -- thank you. and it's so important in this age of Stepford Moms at the playground who all sound the same, and not at all authentic. Following the insights of philosophers who write about care, I've come to firmly believe that we can't care well for others if we are denied a self/ or deny ourselves a self. If the job of parenting is to cultivate a self in others, how can we do that if we are reciting scripts all day or denying the pulsing messiness at the center of all of us?
"So, those of us raised in traditional homes and/or cultures—where people assume that feelings, including dark ones, are part of normal life and rarely a reason for medical intervention ..."
I'm really curious which type of "traditional" home and/or religious beliefs you're referring to here! Because I grew up deep in the bible belt, often considered "traditional," and I learned that my negative thoughts could be just as harmful as actions ... the whole "take captive my thoughts and make them obiedient" verse, coupled with the idea of wrong or "harmful" beliefs.
I loved this piece, just very curious about this part because it doesn't match my experience at all. I think "traditional" religion places high value on positive thoughts and feelings, which partly explains the reason for Lowy's book.
Thanks! I think feelings and thoughts aren’t the same thing. What I mean is that in traditional homes, sadness and overwhelm and tiredness tend to be things to be fought through and shaken off. In gentle parenting households where feelings reign supreme, we’ve made ephemeral emotion into the highest thing.
This whole article. Thank you for this, because you eloquently put into words a phenomenon I've witnessed, struggled with, and haven't been able to vocalize.
This example you shared that's sticking with me: "One result of this drive for perfection is the creepily gentle, narratively scripted parenting lingo that we now hear all too often on the playground."
As an anecdote, recently at a story time I've just started taking my toddler to, he threw a block pretty hard in the general direction of other kids. I snapped at him (literally, snapped my fingers) to get his attention and said fairly sternly, "Luka, no. We do not throw blocks. Next time, you will be removed." I got some weird looks from moms that I didn't understand, until I tuned in to them and realized that when their kids did something they wanted to correct, the lingo was, "No, thank you! Thank you for not throwing any more blocks!" This was said in a very sweet voice, not in the stern tone I use with my toddler when I'm correcting him. I was also the only one who did indeed remove my child outside while he wailed because he threw another block.
I think I broke some societal mom rule by correcting my kid sternly, and I'm still thinking about that.
Thank you so much! I (literally) snap at my boys all the time. Don’t give the weird looks a thought. Your kid will be well-behaved and resilient; many of theirs will be fragile menaces. My oldest is 10 and my youngest is 1, so I now know whereof I speak with even more confidence than I once did. Wrote more about it here: https://www.realclearbooks.com/2024/08/13/the_well-trained_boy_1051228.html
I’d appreciate you for doing that. Nothing grinds my gears like parents who don’t intervene when their kids are unruly, or do so in an extremely ineffective manner. It makes me not want them over for play dates. My husband recently went to lunch with a friend who moved away. I knew the preschooler since he was a baby. And my husband said he was a menace in the restaurant and not once was anything done about it. Yes, there were warnings from the mother. Zero follow through. The father just saw no evil. How did we get to this point?
“motherhood, unlike professional work, is now considered essentially a private hobby rather than a civic service” - what a wild statement to make. having a child is not a civic service, it’s a private choice for an individual to make, and you do not owe civil society your children. seeing having children as a “civic duty” smacks of capitalist indoctrination. genuinely shocked to find such an insane comment in an otherwise nuanced and insightful piece.
It isn’t meant as a capitalist point, but as a civilizational one. Society needs children. Birthing and raising them is work undertaken by some for the benefit of all. Though it’s popular today to see parenthood as a private choice, this is a misunderstanding. Stephanie Murray’s piece, which I think I hyperlinked somewhere, lays it out really well: https://thedispatch.com/article/parenting-kids-importance/
Until our civilisation ceases to be capitalist, having children and panic about low birth rates will continue to be the solution to replenishing the labour force (whilst also clamping down on immigration at all costs). If civilisation cared about your children it wouldn’t make it mind bogglingly difficult to just survive with them. Even in Europe, where I live, parental leave and childcare are wholly inadequate to meet the needs of parents. Why should we feed the machine for the sake of not letting it go hungry?
And of course, society should make the whole process of having and raising children easier and parents are being failed on that front. But you don’t owe society your children.
I agree with your points about child birth and care, but I think that your understanding of what it means to have a child is shallow and myopic, and basically the POV that makes supporting mothers/families harder, as I explain in my essay. It’s not “feeding the machine,” but contributing to the eternal human. Do I think that we should better support families? Yes. Do I think that “opting out” is a solution? Not at all. Or, to put it more precisely: a cure far, far, far worse than the disease.
I mean I agree, I don’t want children and have never seen the appeal so naturally I don’t see the depth in wanting to have a family. I seek depth in my own existence. I like to think I can make just as worthwhile a contribution to civil society without adding new people to it.
What is the “eternal human”? Is that a religious concept or the idea that humans are a level above other species?
Well, both; humans are, in my view, more precious by far than other species. That is a religious view, and (I hope) still the prevailing one even among people who don’t proclaim the religious understanding on which all the morality in our society is built (not killing someone to take her car — also, indisputably, a religious view).
So, I think that we need to get away from children as something one does or doesn’t “want” or “have,” and think about them as something one does or doesn’t “give” or “receive.”
Of course, one can make contributions to society that don’t involve adding new people to it! I’m Catholic; we revere many people who’ve done just that - saints and martyrs and missionaries who dedicate their lives wholly to the service of others in ways that would be precluded by having their own families. Nothing more worthy or holier!
But children are the one contribution society is guaranteed to need and TBH thus the path to societal contribution for those of us who aren’t saints haha. If I didn’t have kids, there’s a 1% chance I’d be doing something more societally useful than I am doing by having 4 of them, and a 99% chance I’d be freer to use more of my time doing things that served only myself.
Ah this must be where our disagreement comes from: I find it rather arrogant to see humans as above other species, given the amount of damage and suffering we cause. I don’t think we’re special but I also don’t believe in god so I just see myself as an evolutionary blip rather than created in someone’s image. To each their own.
I will continue to support my friends who take the (bananas) decision to procreate, but I will continue to see having children as a lifestyle choice. Which isn’t a problem, people can do whatever they want with their lives, god bless feminism for giving us the right to choose. I just find it a bit too gender essentialist to see it as a calling, because that implies that people like me have failed somehow by not getting it.
“Nature red of tooth and claw” is the baseline. Nature is suffering. Humans are part of nature. The fact that we ever do anything to reduce the suffering of others, that we ever rise above “might makes right,” at any time, is what sets us apart.
I don’t think you’ve failed by not having children; that’s a choice one, female or male (no gender about it), can justifiably and even public-spiritedly make, predicated upon a vocation that involves the total sacrifice of oneself to the children of others! And bless the people who do that! I think you are failing by maintaining an understanding of nature, of humanity, and of the world that is demonstrably false, and therefore ultimately leads nowhere worth going.
Ha exactly! Thank you so much!
Great piece!! I think part of it too is that we don't culturally see motherhood as a topic worthy of serious examination. From art to novels to research, it's long been seen as something not that interesting or deep. This is changing, thank goodness, but it was that way for a long, long time. When something isn't considered worthy of inquiry or exploration, overly simplistic ideas fill the spaces in our consciousness and mothers feel like something is wrong if their feelings/experiences are complex!
I really, really appreciate your analysis and insights. You have a gift for seeing beyond the surface to identifying actual dynamics at play. Glad I stumbled on your work!
(Now, time to close the laptop so I can prod grumpy kids out of bed and into getting ready for the day, which I'm moderately annoyed about, as I am every time I have to stop reading and go do mundane parenting tasks. But that doesn't mean that this entire mothering project is for the birds. ☺️ )
this is fantastic -- thank you. and it's so important in this age of Stepford Moms at the playground who all sound the same, and not at all authentic. Following the insights of philosophers who write about care, I've come to firmly believe that we can't care well for others if we are denied a self/ or deny ourselves a self. If the job of parenting is to cultivate a self in others, how can we do that if we are reciting scripts all day or denying the pulsing messiness at the center of all of us?
Thank you so much! 🙏
Excellent article, thank you
Thank you!
Love the point about the designer handbag! Beautiful essay!
Thank you!! 🙏
"So, those of us raised in traditional homes and/or cultures—where people assume that feelings, including dark ones, are part of normal life and rarely a reason for medical intervention ..."
I'm really curious which type of "traditional" home and/or religious beliefs you're referring to here! Because I grew up deep in the bible belt, often considered "traditional," and I learned that my negative thoughts could be just as harmful as actions ... the whole "take captive my thoughts and make them obiedient" verse, coupled with the idea of wrong or "harmful" beliefs.
I loved this piece, just very curious about this part because it doesn't match my experience at all. I think "traditional" religion places high value on positive thoughts and feelings, which partly explains the reason for Lowy's book.
Thanks! I think feelings and thoughts aren’t the same thing. What I mean is that in traditional homes, sadness and overwhelm and tiredness tend to be things to be fought through and shaken off. In gentle parenting households where feelings reign supreme, we’ve made ephemeral emotion into the highest thing.
This whole article. Thank you for this, because you eloquently put into words a phenomenon I've witnessed, struggled with, and haven't been able to vocalize.
This example you shared that's sticking with me: "One result of this drive for perfection is the creepily gentle, narratively scripted parenting lingo that we now hear all too often on the playground."
As an anecdote, recently at a story time I've just started taking my toddler to, he threw a block pretty hard in the general direction of other kids. I snapped at him (literally, snapped my fingers) to get his attention and said fairly sternly, "Luka, no. We do not throw blocks. Next time, you will be removed." I got some weird looks from moms that I didn't understand, until I tuned in to them and realized that when their kids did something they wanted to correct, the lingo was, "No, thank you! Thank you for not throwing any more blocks!" This was said in a very sweet voice, not in the stern tone I use with my toddler when I'm correcting him. I was also the only one who did indeed remove my child outside while he wailed because he threw another block.
I think I broke some societal mom rule by correcting my kid sternly, and I'm still thinking about that.
Thank you so much! I (literally) snap at my boys all the time. Don’t give the weird looks a thought. Your kid will be well-behaved and resilient; many of theirs will be fragile menaces. My oldest is 10 and my youngest is 1, so I now know whereof I speak with even more confidence than I once did. Wrote more about it here: https://www.realclearbooks.com/2024/08/13/the_well-trained_boy_1051228.html
I’d appreciate you for doing that. Nothing grinds my gears like parents who don’t intervene when their kids are unruly, or do so in an extremely ineffective manner. It makes me not want them over for play dates. My husband recently went to lunch with a friend who moved away. I knew the preschooler since he was a baby. And my husband said he was a menace in the restaurant and not once was anything done about it. Yes, there were warnings from the mother. Zero follow through. The father just saw no evil. How did we get to this point?
“motherhood, unlike professional work, is now considered essentially a private hobby rather than a civic service” - what a wild statement to make. having a child is not a civic service, it’s a private choice for an individual to make, and you do not owe civil society your children. seeing having children as a “civic duty” smacks of capitalist indoctrination. genuinely shocked to find such an insane comment in an otherwise nuanced and insightful piece.
It isn’t meant as a capitalist point, but as a civilizational one. Society needs children. Birthing and raising them is work undertaken by some for the benefit of all. Though it’s popular today to see parenthood as a private choice, this is a misunderstanding. Stephanie Murray’s piece, which I think I hyperlinked somewhere, lays it out really well: https://thedispatch.com/article/parenting-kids-importance/
Until our civilisation ceases to be capitalist, having children and panic about low birth rates will continue to be the solution to replenishing the labour force (whilst also clamping down on immigration at all costs). If civilisation cared about your children it wouldn’t make it mind bogglingly difficult to just survive with them. Even in Europe, where I live, parental leave and childcare are wholly inadequate to meet the needs of parents. Why should we feed the machine for the sake of not letting it go hungry?
And of course, society should make the whole process of having and raising children easier and parents are being failed on that front. But you don’t owe society your children.
I agree with your points about child birth and care, but I think that your understanding of what it means to have a child is shallow and myopic, and basically the POV that makes supporting mothers/families harder, as I explain in my essay. It’s not “feeding the machine,” but contributing to the eternal human. Do I think that we should better support families? Yes. Do I think that “opting out” is a solution? Not at all. Or, to put it more precisely: a cure far, far, far worse than the disease.
I mean I agree, I don’t want children and have never seen the appeal so naturally I don’t see the depth in wanting to have a family. I seek depth in my own existence. I like to think I can make just as worthwhile a contribution to civil society without adding new people to it.
What is the “eternal human”? Is that a religious concept or the idea that humans are a level above other species?
Well, both; humans are, in my view, more precious by far than other species. That is a religious view, and (I hope) still the prevailing one even among people who don’t proclaim the religious understanding on which all the morality in our society is built (not killing someone to take her car — also, indisputably, a religious view).
So, I think that we need to get away from children as something one does or doesn’t “want” or “have,” and think about them as something one does or doesn’t “give” or “receive.”
Of course, one can make contributions to society that don’t involve adding new people to it! I’m Catholic; we revere many people who’ve done just that - saints and martyrs and missionaries who dedicate their lives wholly to the service of others in ways that would be precluded by having their own families. Nothing more worthy or holier!
But children are the one contribution society is guaranteed to need and TBH thus the path to societal contribution for those of us who aren’t saints haha. If I didn’t have kids, there’s a 1% chance I’d be doing something more societally useful than I am doing by having 4 of them, and a 99% chance I’d be freer to use more of my time doing things that served only myself.
Ah this must be where our disagreement comes from: I find it rather arrogant to see humans as above other species, given the amount of damage and suffering we cause. I don’t think we’re special but I also don’t believe in god so I just see myself as an evolutionary blip rather than created in someone’s image. To each their own.
I will continue to support my friends who take the (bananas) decision to procreate, but I will continue to see having children as a lifestyle choice. Which isn’t a problem, people can do whatever they want with their lives, god bless feminism for giving us the right to choose. I just find it a bit too gender essentialist to see it as a calling, because that implies that people like me have failed somehow by not getting it.
“Nature red of tooth and claw” is the baseline. Nature is suffering. Humans are part of nature. The fact that we ever do anything to reduce the suffering of others, that we ever rise above “might makes right,” at any time, is what sets us apart.
I don’t think you’ve failed by not having children; that’s a choice one, female or male (no gender about it), can justifiably and even public-spiritedly make, predicated upon a vocation that involves the total sacrifice of oneself to the children of others! And bless the people who do that! I think you are failing by maintaining an understanding of nature, of humanity, and of the world that is demonstrably false, and therefore ultimately leads nowhere worth going.