Moms (was: Does JKR's portrayal of woment combat sexism?

[cindysphynx]

I wrote:

 
> > Maybe I just don't have a clear idea of what you mean by "higher 
> > regard" for the role of mother. (snip)
> > I'm having trouble understanding the argument, I think.  Maybe 
the 
> > problem is that I really don't see why a mother is entitled 
> > to "higher regard" in society than a woman who chooses not to 
have 
> > children or cannot have children.  Or a man who chooses to be a 
> > father, for that matter.  I just don't get it.

Catlady replied:

 
> Cindy, my recollection is that you posted about this yourself less 
> than a month ago. IIRC you complained of men who patronised you 
for 
> being 'just a mom' and employed women who asked you what on earth 
you 
> found to do all day. That's a social attitude, and it's hard to 
> think of laws that could change it. 


I recall that exchange, actually.  My beef is not that others don't 
laud my choice to stay home.  My beef is that they can't seem to 
keep their snotty little opinions to themselves.  

Really, now.  I don't rush out to the curb and ask the trash 
collector how he can *stand* to do that work because I would find it 
so *boring.*  That would be just plain rude, and the people who ask 
me why I'm not bored are also rude.  And I certainly never said that 
I ought to be held in higher regard than a father or a childless 
woman.

I really don't require that anyone admire me for my choice.  I ask 
that they not belittle me.  

Yes, people who think stay at home moms are lazy, stupid or wasting 
their time do exist.  One could even say that these people don't 
hold mothers in high regard.  I just think it is folly to decide we 
as a society will try to convince *them* to the contrary.  I'd much 
prefer that someone pass a law so that stay-at-home mothers could 
buy some disability insurance if they decide they want to do so.  

After all, being concerned about whether society holds you and your 
life's work in "high regard" sounds quite similar to being concerned 
with what "other people think."  So if someone's decision to have 
children is influenced by whether they will be held in high regard 
by others, I think they might be having children for all the wrong 
reasons.


> I do not believe that the free market (whose unfreedom is a whole 
> 'nother rant) is the truest possible judge of values, and I am 
> troubled that the children of the college-educated class (ooh, the 
> classism can of worms!) are being raised by people who tell them 
that 
> evolution is a lie and 3.01 is bigger than 3.1 because it has more 
> digits and Botticelli's Birth of Venus is disgusting pornography 
> because it's a nude ... and that only fags and lesbos study for 
> school or read for pleasure ... but I am worse than troubled, I am 
> empathically agonized, at the thought of intelligent, talented 
women 
> (or even men) spending eighteen-plus *years* imprisoned, caged up 
> with children (who are horrible by definition)! Even merely having 
to 
> spend nights and weekends in that prison is more suffering than 
*I* 
> could ever endure.

Er, I'm not following you here at all.  Are you saying that 
intelligent people shouldn't raise kids for 18 years?  I admit to 
being totally lost by your remarks.  

Suffice it to say that I'll leave it to the judgment parents to 
decide the best way to get their children raised.  

Cindy