Sonia Sotomayor is not a mother. So what?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Pamela Jeanne and for that link to article in The American Prospect. I had not it and it does a good job of highlighting the tension (not anger tension but balancing tension) in the discussion of mothers and non-mothers. Pieces like that and books such as yours I hope can open our eyes to ways in which we might unintentionally marginalize our allies.

And, thank you for mentioning your book. I did not decide that I did not want to raise children but my life circumstances have never been ones in which I would choose to raise children. So women who are unable to conceive and women without partners who choose to conceive or adopt children and women who never have a desire to have children under any circumstances all have very different experiences and perspectives than do I. While I do not know the experience of fertility treatment I am better for knowing your stories, pain and joy. I believe it goes a long way towards helping us all build empathy and respect for each other in our uniqueness and our differences.

Thanks for your piece. It also caused a spike in my blood pressure, though, because nothing gets my goat more than conventional wisdom that assumes women and men without children have less empathy or don't "get it." Very often I've found the opposite to be true.

For example, during my 10 years of trying to conceive (unsuccessfully), those who were hands down the least compassionate about my experience were moms. They were curiously tone deaf while those who were most empathetic and respectful of my losses were women without children. It amazes me still since stereotypes would have us believe the opposite to be true.

You might be interested to see that motherhood politics was the central theme of Kara Jesella's piece in The American Prospect called "Are Motherhood Politics a Good Idea" ( http://tinyurl.com/63lqdc ) It echos some of the same ideas from the "we know better because we're moms" contingent.

This is not to slam all moms. I have quite a few mom friends who are lovely people in every sense of the word. The point I'd like to make is that we should focus on an individual's merits and accomplishments not their reproductive accomplishments as to whether they are empathetic or compassionate.

BTW: I'm the author of the Non-Mom post in one of the related links in your piece. I recently completed a book, Silent Sorority ( http://www.silentsorority.com ), that addresses among other things, the growing marginalization of women who were unable or chose not to have children. Welcome your thoughts.  Best, Pamela Jeanne

http://www.silentsorority.com

http://www.Coming2Terms.com

Thank you for your kind words but most of all thank you for sharing your truth. Your comment is beautiful and profound and I can only say, Amen and, again, thank you.

Great article on an issue I think is core in our culture for women. I wanted kids, couldn't have them. I tried non-traditional methods. Still no luck. My husband, from whom I am now separated, kept at me to try again without giving one tiny thought to the grief I felt over my failure to get pregnant. Yes, I said failure. At a very deep level, I felt I had failed.And failure was not acceptable. I thought I had never met an obstacle I could  not overcome.

I have since had to look at some of the reasons I wanted kids. I love kids. I get along great with my nieces and nephews. Was this why I wanted kids? Like many women, I put off having kids due to my career. I didn't take a serious stab at it until I was past the age of easy pregnancies. It is not convenient for a young, hard charging cop to bring a baby into the world. It would be hard to reconcile the hours I work, not to mention the politics that come to bear for a pregnant woman in law enforcement.

I realized, reluctantly, that one of the reasons I wanted kids was to have the traditional family with my husband, just like all the blissful people you read about and see in commercials. As a woman in a non-traditional job, I felt I had missed out on some of the normal joys of life. I wanted that intense intimate connection after a career spent learning to detach for the sake of emotional survival. I wanted to join the club. Be part of the larger community of parents, from which I felt excluded. You know, one of the gang.

Now, to be honest, I am still struggling with what I really want. I realize that I am an absolute cluster-f*&# of cultural, professional, and societal expectations charging headlong into an individual conciousness that wishes every day to be embraced for what it brings that is unique and valuable. And I think this is true for many people, both male and female.

I believe our roles in society have changed, but our hearts haven't caught up yet. The insane depth of our conditioning continues to shock and amaze me. I may not understand what it is like to be a mom, but I guarantee, most moms can't understand what it is like to be me either. Still, I don't hold it against them. In fact, some of my favorite people are moms. Including the one who gave birth to me and who still values my opinion, even though my experiences are different than hers, or perhaps, because of it.

My wish for humanity is that we can find a way to stop competing with each other to be right. That we can learn to share a dialog without trying to drown out those ideas that are foreign to us. That we can embrace our differences and recognize the value that each person can bring to the collective table of our lives. With judges on the supreme court in particular, if there were no diverisity in views, there would be no point in interpreting law, as justice for all cannot not exist in too narrow a framework.

TJ Smith

www.working-with-women.com ( http://www.working-with-women.com/ )

Making judgments and assumptions about people based on their identity and lifestyle is madness. Whether it is that young feminists are childfree and not interested in family issues or that mothers lose interest in feminist issues and no longer care about reproductive rights once they begin to raise children or that women without children can't see beyond themselves or that the 80+ percent of women in their 40's or above will share a point of view because they share the status of mother or any of the insane mommy wars - it's all counterproductive.

Being a mother or not might make you a happier or content person, it might shift your focus, interests and views but it doesn't change your abilities to be an activist or advocate or serve the public or guarantee a point of view. It is frustrating to see statements like the comment I quoted at the beginning of my post.

Thanks for your comment, christinajeanne

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer )
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

I don't care weather someone is a mom or not who is in governement. Some might argue they don't like her because she dosen't have kids and others might say she can devote her life to her work because she dosen't have a family. Personally it is a personal choice and we should judge people on the work they do not weather they have kids or not. There is this whole debate about the mommy wars. I think being a stay at home is a very noble thing to do and so is being a working mom. Both are hard work. I think we should give both moms credit instead of arguing about which one is doing the best thing for there family. That's for the mom and her family to decide not anyone else.

Thanks, Teri, for your comment and the pointer to Purple Women & Friends. I'm seeing more calls for communities for women that don't focus on discussions on dating (i.e. finding a husband) and motherhood. Those of us who are contentedly single and/or without children are a growing group. Most recently I saw a response to the launch of Double X lamenting the perceived "women's service" orientation of a media site that grew out of political origins. ( http://www.slate.com/id/2218259 )

Okay, I looked at the site and it is fine—but it duplicates Cosmo, Glamour, and a whole lot of other print magazines that presumably have their own websites.

Which is to say: it skews young.

Which is also fine, BUT, I am writing to ask whether there are any—ANY—webzines at all that target single, childless women over 35 who are NOT in nor actively seeking, a relationship?

We are probably the largest underserved "magazine" demographic in the US. And our numbers are growing. We have disposable income, control a fair amount of wealth, and have interests that range much more widely than children, shoes, and holding on to a man, which are the mainstays of most women's magazines and Web sites, including XX.

I keep thinking of starting up something online for such women. I don't think there's anything, anything at all, out there for us. I could visualize a lot of advertising revenue—e.g. Home Depot advertising "extreme beginner's" home repair courses that don't assume you know ANYTHING. Do any of you know whether there are any webzines like this out there?

Hopefully we can find ways to both come together as allies and grow our respective communities.

Thank you, Julie, not just for your kind words but the incredible context and insight you bring in this comment.

I think it is fantastic that women are organizing and speaking out from their identity as moms. Particularly if they've felt dismissed, diminished or silenced. Absolutely it happens that mothers are taken less seriously or are asked to not speak of how motherhood has affected their activism or perspective. And I think it is smart to use motherhood as an organizing concept and marketing hook for groups.

However, that sometimes crosses the line into thinking that all moms (and cross that out and fill in any other identity) think alike. Or worse, and where it gets offensive, are assertions and implications that motherhood grants you superiority in any way.

As you point out, that statistic that by age 40, 80% of American women have become mothers sort of points out both the source and the folly of the "debate." Of course motherhood is going to impact the thinking of women. Of course women will talk about it. But it is also really silly to think that it means those 80% are now going to think alike, and prioritize and approach issues in the same way. It is equally silly to think that the 20% aren't going to work for issues that support and benefit the 80%.

A couple of examples. Diversity of thought and approach make for more robust and thorough discussion and examination and can remove blinders. And diversity of life experience and identity aid this. However, no life experience or identity makes outcomes and outlooks foregone conclusions. As I pointed out above, Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall both black men but could not be more different in the approach they take or conclusions they reach. Marshall was appreciated when adding to questioning and discussions context from his life experience. Thomas does not question and reportedly adds little in discussions thus missing rich opportunity to enrich the examination of cases.

Another is Catholicism. There are many Catholics who point to their religion as a source of conservative political orientation and as a reason for focusing on certain issues such as anti-choice. One can see the source in the church through examples such as leaders who deny communion to pro-choice politicians and who sought to ban President Obama from speaking at the Notre Dame commencement. However, there is a strong tradition of social justice in the church that leads many to focus on ending the death penalty (which many conservative Catholics end up supporting with their votes for politicians who oppose abortion thus contradicting their faith) and who support government aid for the needy and immigration rights. Knowing that someone is Catholic doesn't tell you what their political views will be though there are plenty of activist groups that have "Catholic" in their name and activists who speak about how their faith has influenced their activism.

There is much hand wringing going on now from the right and left because Sonia Sotomayor does not have a record of decisions in abortion rights cases. Liberals are hoping woman=pro-choice and conservatives are hoping Catholic=anti-choice. The reality is that it is only safe to say that Sotomayor's unique experiences and identities will influence how she approaches every question before her on the bench.

So, if mothers (or, again, identity of your choice) go beyond speaking from their identity and sharing how their identity has been a catalyst, motivator or influence and assert "we've got it from here - only we can focus on and achieve advancement that benefits mothers/parents/children/family" you will turn off potential allies. And women who are not mothers who say "your issues are not my issues" equally undercut themselves. It's great to have someone like you (universal you) succeed, lead, represent but it is not the only way to reach one's goals. I'm thrilled to see the first woman of color nominated to the courts but as a black person do I believe that only a black appointee would assure my interests are advanced? No. Would I like to see more women and people of color on the bench? Absolutely. Would I trade Clarence Thomas and have no black Supreme Court Justice in exchange for a white male liberal version of Scalia? In a heartbeat.

It hearkens back to the reductionist vs. intersectionality debates of the election. One only need look at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin to see how absurd the assumption that electing, nominating or elevating a mother means that your agenda will be served. And the same translates into the workplace.

Anyhow, no worries from me about lengthy comments. Clearly I can ramble on and on about this topic, too. :)

Thanks for this thoughtful comment, Elana. You've raised a number of good examples. Indeed, there seems to be something to the notion that the way your brain is wired has to do with your outlook on the world and raising children doesn't change that.

Nicholas Kristof has an interesting piece in the New York Times looking at that idea. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28kristo...

The upshot is that liberals and conservatives don’t just think differently, they also feel differently. This may even be a result, in part, of divergent neural responses.

And I forgot to say that I would think the humor in the appellate briefs would be a plus. I'd support your nomination just for that.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer )
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

As a person, fellow BlogHer member and childfree by choice woman, I really appreciate this article. Keep the conversation going. I have often felt judged as "less" when really I have more to give because I do not have children. I personally am very involved in my community. My contributions are not as easy to measure in society.

I ran a blog called Purple Women & Friends for two years and we explored the topic of being a non-mom. Although the blog is closed, the articles are searchable by topic if anyone wants to explore that journey further.

Teri Tith

Purple Women & Friends ( http://purplewomenblog.blogspot.com/ )

Well, I certainly would like to see a real empirically based study  to see if having children really changes a woman's Compassionate quota. I would like to see the study that changing diapers, cleaning up spit up,cheering on baby girl's first words really broaden your perspective and makes you less selfish. I find it hard to believe.

There are lots of life expereinces that can broaden your perspective. Raising a child is one of them. But just one. Working in the peace corps, watching someone getting beaten, having someone  unable to get the health care they need because they can't afford it -- life happens and it influences our worldview.

It seems to me that people are confusing experiencing unconditional love for one's offsprings as automatically having not only  unconditional love for the world-- but also a deep wisedom about the world.

This is just silly. I believe  that you are born with a certain degree of emotional intelligence which includes your ability to be empathetic and selfless. Can you influence your EQ - experts say you can. But a self-absorbed person will likely to continue to be self-absorbed regardless of the # of children they have ( I'm thinking Kate Gosselin right now) 

Those who are blessed with a high quotient of empathy - I am biased here because I am a big fan of empatheizers -- have the ability to feel what others feel even when they haven't experienced exactly the same thing themselves. In other words, they have the ability to feel what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes. 

elana
Blogher Contributing Editor,Business&CareersFunnyBusiness ( http://funnybusiness.typepad.com/funnybusiness )

In the Fem 2.0 chat you referenced that Cyn, Jaelithe and I moderated, but that, more importantly, a broad breadth of diverse women participated in, the whole shift of frame of reference came up between the moms and non-moms.

I said that after becoming a mother I had experienced a shift and had developed a stronger motivation for my activism.

Tracy, who I deeply respect, said that comments such as these marginalized non-moms.

I asked how can my personal anecdote about my experience marginalize someone else if I do not apply it beyond myself? I endeavored to clarify that when providing a context for myself, I by no means intend for that to *ever* invalidate someone else's context or frame of reference. In my life, motherhood was my catalyst, but stating that is *never* intended to either imply that it is the only conceivable catalyst or that any other catalyst is lesser somehow.

Each time I start with a conversation about the intersection between my motherhood and activism, I do talk about my motherhood because it is such an integral part of my life. In fact, the opening to my Change. org women's rights piece last week (sorry, is it better or worse to link? I feel a writer's urge to document through source cite and link so I will http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/finding_t... but please know it's just source cite, not some boost) I open with the statistic that over 50% of women are mothers but that at age 40 (my age, which is why it's significant to me) 80% are. That's just...wow. I had no idea it was so overwhelming. And yet, I'm not shocked, I knew.

That's why I wasn't surprised by a study I cited in my Guardian piece (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/2... that asserted childfree women are discriminated against in the workplace because of their nonmom status (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/1... ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/1... )).

Our status, our frame, our catalyst---our IDENTITY---matters greatly. It affects how we think and what we do and how others interact with us.

That's why I think the things Sonia Sotomayor says---and the spectacular degree of self-awareness and emotional intelligence they reveal---are honest and I'm glad she said them.

It didn't even register on my radar what her parenting status was---and I'll be honest and say I hadn't thought about it until your article here---because she was so clear in her self-awareness and that reassured me that she was in tune with who she is and how her life status and experiences have affected her.

I hope we're all good with understanding that high-degrees of self-awareness, and articulation of our personal knowledge of our own catalysts is not always intended as exclusionary or mutually exclusive.

If not, then I scent a little too much politically correct expectation that I believe lowers conversation and creates an obstacle.

Jaelithe said it better when she made the point (and pardon my paraphrasing and interpreting)that asking moms to NOT talk about how motherhood creates a shift and frame for them is equally unconstructive as asking another person to NOT talk about how her time volunteering in a women's shelter created a shift and frame for her.

I think it's good we're talking more openly about motherhood this way, but I also hope we can use that to encourage others to talk about their frames more openly and "safely" (for lack of a better word).

Both choices---and bless the ability to have choices and the power and strength to make them, because as an infertile woman who approached motherhood from a nontraditional route, I deeply understand how not having the choice or making  a nontraditional choices can be ahem "character building"---have, to be overly glib about it, a PR problem, and each needs to build and drive the conversation about their own status, rather than chasing the truck that is driving it currently.

(FWIW, in my research for my articles I came across a stat that 68% of married moms, probably middle class I guessed, vote conservative, often single issue. I didn't check into that number deeper b/c it wasn't immediately relevant---okay didn't fit in my word count---but it has been niggling at me ever since. 68% wow. That's not insignificant, to say the least, and sort of blows my whole "there is no bloc" theory.)

Apologies for length, but clearly this is a big big big topic for me.

I really appreciate you discussing it further and deeper. Great article.

Julie
Using My Words ( http://theartfulflower.blogspot.com/ )

Thanks so much for your comments, Steph. Yep, life events can change our perspective dramatically. As I watch my mother and her siblings help care for my 95 year-old grandmother, I think much more about long term care and end of life issues than I did 20 years ago. Becoming a parent is, I imagine, one of the most dramatic life changes one ever goes through.

But, thank you for affirming that we can be inclusive, respectful allies no matter what side of motherhood we are on.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer )
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

I'm the "Steph" in Julie's comment that you quoted and I do believe that your frame of reference shifts when you become a parent, sometimes dramatically so.  But I laugh at the idea that one part of the demographic has cornered the market on empathy. Yes, I think far more about children without health care and education than I once did, but so do all of my childless friends who now discuss and research those issues with me.  And all those childless people I know who work in education or health care, who simply love children, or who happen to have beating hearts and actual blood running through their veins.

Who cares if Sodomayer is a mother or owns a puppy or has killed every house plant she's ever owned?  She brings her own rich, unique experiences to the Court.  I'm not a divorced latina woman.  Would I be disqualified because I'm a relatively affluent white girl who's never had to struggle to pay her rent?  (I think I'm far more likely to be disqualified by the fact that I tend to make jokes throughout appellate briefs, something not all judges appreciate, sadly.)

As an aside, I know the heedless comments you're referring to: "You can't understand" or "you'll see one day."I heard them often enough when I was a childless feminist.  And I'm sure that I have accidentally tossed off similarly insensitive comments since I became a feminist with two toddlers firmly attached to my legs.  Your post is a good reminder to me to be more careful and inclusive in the future.

Lawyer Mama

http://lawyermama.com

http://momocrats.typepad.com

http://dcmetromoms.com