Snapshot Chronicles

Susan Getgood's personal blog

  • Home
  • About Snapshot Chronicles
  • Privacy & Disclosure
    • Cookie Policy
  • Getgood.Com

Has Dooce become the modern day June Cleaver?

04.16.2009 by Susan Getgood //

Barbara Billingsley as June CleaverBefore I begin, full disclaimer. These are my thoughts, my feelings, my perceptions about gender stereotypes. Your Mileage May Vary.

I’m 46. As your mileage catches up to mine, you may  see my point of view  🙂  Or not.

Of late, the mainstream media has shifted its attention to the mom blogger. Whether it covers the Digital Mom (Today) or the Secret Lives of Moms (Oprah) , it seems to be focusing its “laser” attention on a new stereotype of moms.

A digital mom. Who seems to be in her early thirties, generally white and blond-ish, and blogging about her experiences — good,  sometimes bad, and occasionally whiny — as a mom. Played on TV,  generally, by Heather Armstrong (Dooce).

Don’t get me wrong. I love being a mom. I waited a long time to become one, and it was never certain that I would. My son is one of the most important things in my life.

But my experience of motherhood as a later in life mom with, at the time Douglas was born, a senior executive job at a technology company is very different than Heather’s.  I had to battle different things, including very real sexism on the job. I had to operate in a world where my joy in parenthood had to be tempered, because my male colleagues saw it as a weakness. They would never admit it, but oh my, was it clear.  Seen, not heard, baby.

I have tremendous respect for women who, like Dooce, have turned their motherhood into a money stream. God bless you and rock on as you rake it in. Not for me, but it works for you and I have no problem with it.

I’m also NOT proposing that mom bloggers stop sharing their stories in any way they wish on their blogs. Your life, your stories, your words, your right.

BUT….

Have we taken four steps forward and five steps back? Are we still letting mainstream media define us by our motherhood? Sure, it is not June Cleaver anymore; there’s a nod to diversity. A teeny weeny nod.

Nevertheless, the media seems to be re-focusing on women in a very traditional role of mother, tripping lightly over our other achievements.

Have we really come a long way, or are we back near the beginning?

Is this new perception of modern day moms damaging our ability to be perceived as women APART from our roles as mothers?  The media seems to be grabbing hold of an image of the digital mom that threatens to overwhelm our individual and collective achievements as professional women. To stuff us back in a gender-defined box.

How else to explain shows like “In the Motherhood” ? Or Oprah’s Secret Lives of Moms, which I did not watch because the show generally irritates me and I didn’t expect the mom episode to be much different. (Read some other moms who weren’t over the moon about Oprah).  Or the idea that Oprah’s foray into Twitter (lord help us) has something to do with soccer moms?

Is the digital mom becoming a new stereotype that will be just as damaging as June Cleaver?

I’m worried that the answer is yes.

Now, here’s where I put on my truly radical feminist hat. Be warned, and bear with me, as I am still thinking through this issue. I would love to hear your thoughts, whether you agree with me, think I am full of shit or something in between.

Is the mainstream media stuffing women, in general, back in the mommy box because the US power structure relies on women staying in their traditional gender role? To some degree, I think the answer is yes.

Those in power – mostly men – want to stay in power. Full stop. Individual women are allowed to break out of the mold – if they push push push hard enough, give up everything except their careers etc. They are allowed to be the rare exceptions – the Queen Bees.  They are unique.

Society doesn’t  acknowledge that women can be just as capable, competitive as male counterparts, and still be nurturers.  Moms. The successful woman is special. [Note: Women are also allowed to rise to the top if they embody the stereotype and use it to be successful. Mary Kay, Avon etc.]

The rest of us? At the core, The Powers That Be want – need  — us as a gender to stay in the traditional role as much as possible. Our economy is to some degree built on the assumption that we will. We can have jobs, but not the top jobs. Look at the tech industry – even the social media industry. At most conferences, most of the speaking slots are STILL filled by men. A smattering of token women, usually the same ones over and over. Because you know, they are special.

Even Michelle Obama, a very successful attorney in her own right,  has been completely redefined as a wife and mother. Don’t even get me started on how the  media has f-ed over Hillary Clinton. Would take multiple posts and only my policy wonk friends would stick it out.

The other side of this problem is the Madonna – Whore dichotomy. It often seems, women must be one or the other. Never both. Our society still has tremendous difficulty separating sex from biology. Consider breastfeeding. Biology, people. Mothers make milk and some choose to breastfeed their babies. Others don’t. Has NOTHING to do with sex. No need for blankets. Or embarassment. For anyone.

Yes,  this mom in the media trend makes me very uneasy. Tell me I’m wrong. I want to be wrong. I don’t think I am.

What do you think?

Categories // Blogging, Gender

Sarah Palin for VP???

09.04.2008 by Susan Getgood //

I’m a lifelong Democrat and have been pretty vocal this summer about my disappointment at the way my political party selected its nominee for president.  I’ve said it here, and on comments on other blogs: I think the Democratic party machine was more interested in not having Senator Clinton than anything else. I don’t think they had the confidence that a woman could win the general election.  Obama, and his charisma, presented the best, possibly most malleable, alternative. His (?) VP choice Joe Biden is a distinctly uninspired but necessary choice to counter Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience.

Nevertheless, even though I will never think that the Democrats fielded the best candidate they could, I will vote for Obama and Biden this fall. They are a much better choice than McCain and whoever ends up as his running mate.

Sarah Palin? I don’t think she’s going to make til the end of September. I’ll be surprised if she lasts until next week.

Even before I read Tim Rutten’s column from  yesterday’s LA Times, in which he invokes Thomas Eagleton’s short tenure as George McGovern’s running mate in 1972, I had started to wonder if she would make the mission.

And I can’t help but ask — could that have been John McCain’s plan from the very start?

Bear with me for a moment.
May 07 VT, Field Trip 074

Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president of the United States, and we should never put someone in the VP slot who cannot assume the duties of president, immediately if necessary.

It has absolutely nothing to do with her family status or children, or even her political views, most of which I personally find abhorrent. I could list them here, but Gloria Steinem did a much better job than I could ever do in today’s LA Times.

But, there are some interesting angles that make her an appealing choice for a running mate. Or at least a first choice. Starting with her gender and her family history, up to and including the pregnant teenage daughter and soon-to-deploy son. Right now, we’ve got a full-scale version of the “mommy wars” raging on the Internet, with people on all sides criticizing her for her choices. Different criticisms of course, but criticism nonetheless.

Which provides a total distraction from the real issue – her political opinions and qualifications for the job. She’s not qualified, but not because she’s a woman or because of the choices she’s made as a parent. The only people who have the right to decide whether she’s a good mother are her children; quite frankly, I don’t care one way or the other. Ditto all the speculation about her youngest child and how soon she returned to work. Distraction.

She’s not qualified. Full stop. She doesn’t have any national experience. Obama doesn’t have much, but he’s been in the Senate and the long primary season afforded him the opportunity to at least think about international issues. Palin freely admits she hasn’t thought much about Iraq…

And the real concern are her political views, and how they would impact this country should McCain be elected and die in office. He’s 72. It could happen.

Writes Steinem:

“She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women’s wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves “abstinence-only” programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers’ millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn’t spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.”

Steinem argues, and I believe she’s right, that Palin was a choice to please the far-right, Christian conservative wing of the Republican Party.

But what if McCain picked her knowing that she wouldn’t last, that she’d have to bow out. Leaving him free to pick a more middle-of-the-road candidate?

Sinister? Machiavellian? Yup. And I could be wrong, very wrong. Maybe McCain didn’t do it on purpose.

But I’m still betting she won’t be his running mate for too long.

Because she won’t bring the female vote. Many disillusioned Clinton supporters who were considering McCain are far less likely to do so now. Once we get over the mommy war segment of the program, they’ll quickly come to the realization, as Steinem put it:

“To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, “Somebody stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.”

Now, maybe the GOP leadership knew that she wouldn’t bring the Clinton vote, but thought she’d appeal to a different segment of the female voting population, as PunditMom suggests. Who knows…

But I’m still betting she doesn’t last.

[tags] Sarah Palin, presidential election [/tags]

Categories // Gender, Politics

Gender benders

07.30.2008 by Susan Getgood //

Okay, so I am very late on my wrap-up of our California trip and I missed two SciFi Sundays. What the heck, it’s summer and I am still trying to figure out what I want to do when I grow up. I shall try to get to both this weekend.

In the meantime, please enjoy the following two items.

First, the Nine Phrases Women Use, a handy little guide to understanding women’s speech that my mom emailed me this afternoon. I have no idea what the original source is but it struck me very funny.  Hang around me long enough, you’ll definitely hear numbers 8 & 9.

(1) Fine:   This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.

(2) Five Minutes:    If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.

(3) Nothing:    This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine.

(4) Go Ahead:   This is a dare, not permission. Don’t Do It!

(5) Loud Sigh:   This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing.   (Refer back to # 3 for the meaning of nothing.)

(6) That’s Okay:   This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That’s okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.

(7) Thanks:   A woman is thanking you, do not question, or Faint. Just say you’re welcome. (I want to add in a clause here – This is true, unless she says ‘Thanks a lot’ – that is PURE sarcasm and she is not thanking you at all.  DO NOT say ‘you’re welcome’ … that will bring on a ‘whatever’).

(8) Whatever: Is a women’s way of saying F*** YOU!

(9) Don’t worry about it, I got it:  Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking ‘What’s wrong?’ For the woman’s response refer to # 3.

Item 2: Don’t miss Catherine Connor’s superb essay, Because You Haven’t Really Arrived As A Feminist Until You’ve Bitched About Being Condescended To By The New York Times. It is the best commentary, full stop, on the New York Times BlogHer article and its aftermath.

[tags] gender, BlogHer [/tags]

Categories // BlogHer, Gender

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Search

Posts

  • Paris: Panoramas, Gardens and … Catacombs?
  • Five Must See Museums in Paris
  • Paris: When to go, where to stay, what to eat
  • Reykjavik Restaurants Worth the Trip
  • Reykjavik: Favorite Museums

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Modern Studio Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

 

Loading Comments...