The Dark Side

The other day on NPR, Susan Roesgen discussed Michelle Obama’s desire to be “First Mom” and seemed to find it unbelievable that a Princeton and Harvard Law School graduate might actually decide to forgo pursuing a high powered career to focus on her children. Having to give up a career, she said was the dark side of his winning the presidency and her becoming first lady.

I have to admit, given the bias of my book, that it seems absurd to hear a giving up a "career" -- so you have time to nurture your children -- referred to as the dark side. It may be the side that involves the most sacrifice and the greatest investment; however, dark side seems a bit overstated.

Google the words "Dark Side," and 40,900,000 hits will appear.

The term "darkside, although I could not find the origin of the term in the dictionary, refers to something negative -- the dark side of man -- our propensity for evil.

Responses to Susan Roesgen's statement fell into two distinct camps:

(1) “First Mom” is the best and most appropriate title for a First Lady with young chldren. I didn't support Obama for President, but I will applaud if his wife remembers her children are far more important than anything else.

(2) It is disappointing to see Ivy League women sell out to patriarchy and become economically dependent on their husbands. Like it or not, a stay-at-home mom is subordinate to her husband. I know it is hard to raise children. However, it should be a “call to arms” to demand family-friendly workplaces, and end to discrimination against wage-earning mothers, and most of all, husbands who take equal responsibility for housework and childcare. I voted for Obama, but already I am disappointed in his “pale male” administration. American feminists need to demand that Obama follow the lead of Chile’s Michele Bachelet and Spain’s Louis Zapatero and ensure that 50% of his Cabinet members are feminist women. I don’t like Michelle’s “First Mom” comment. However, First Ladies don’t get paid anything and Michelle needs to insist that if we expect First Ladies to “be active,” then America needs to pay them. Nov 8th, 2008

These comments raise several points we might discuss.

(1) Are children more important than anything else? If so, why? If not, then what is more important?

(2) Should we really be disappointed when "Ivy League" women -- as opposed to state university graduates? -- leave their careers and devote their time to mothering?

(3) If a woman does make such a decision -- or better said -- if such a decision is made, is that women really "selling out to the patriarchy (and related question -- who/where/what is the patriarchy).

In response to (1), to cut to the chase, there are two ways to look at this question. The first if to look at the person and her personal interests, her self-interest. The second is to look at the future and what it takes to produce a productive series of generations (not necessarily happy or self-fulfilled, but possibly successful as measured in a number of ways); in other words, sacrificing one's self-interest to promote that of future generations.

If we look at the existing research, although the designs often leave something to be desired, studies fairly consistently show that mothers are important in a large number of ways. Mother-involved and well-loved children are more likely to be resilient, have better mental, emotional and physical health, and be good citizens -involved in their communities, and less likely to engage in high risk behavior. I could add more, but I will conclude this part of the discussion by saying that I know of no studies, other than perhaps some really skewed studies done during the heat of the feminist movement, that saw anything negative about such mothers. The negatives of mothering are individual positives. One cannot be a top lawyer, doctor, researcher, and also an involved and loving mother. Children are time-consuming. To raise a child well is pretty much a full time job, particularly during the early years. I am tired of writing, but will end here by stating that if we think primarily of ourselves, it is natural that we will focus on ourselves and our careers; however, if we are concerned about the future, that is a foolish thing to do if we have chosen to be mothers, or even had motherhood thrust upon us. What other people realize and we as Americans often do not, is that we are just a link in a chain that goes back to the beginning of life on earth, and that will continue as long as we have descendants, either Homo sapiens or some other species. While each of us is, in the bigger scheme of things, relatively unimportant, a mere link in a chain, we are also crucial, as that chain could break and thus end with us.

I will continue with the other questions at some point.