Motherhood, as so many say, changes everything. All that was  once taken for granted, from careers to relationships to the joys of basic  grooming, is thrown into the air, never to be the same. When I brought my first  son, Joshua, home from the hospital, the saying held shockingly true. With the  birth of one wrinkly, squalling creature, my perspective on the entire world  suddenly transformed. It was like an earthquake. Sure, you knew it was coming,  but when it actually happens, this seismic event lands you upside down, shaking  your head with wonder. 
            Joshua had colic, with his scream becoming particularly loud  any time he left the house. That meant that for nearly three months, I was  housebound, leaving only when my husband came home to take over. I got pale. My  car seemed to be a foreign object. My friends were now only voices on the other  end of the phone. Having never been this isolated, I didn't really know what to  expect. I thought I might become a drone, a floor-walking, baby-bouncing robot.  Instead, as the days stretched into weeks, then months, I found that my nerve  endings were becoming increasingly exposed, open to the wind. Instead of making  me tune out, motherhood, I realized, was making me experience everything that  much more keenly. 
            I noticed this in particular when I watched the news. As I  breastfed, with the sound on mute, I watched stories -- horrible stories -- about  what was going on outside of my all-too familiar walls. By the time my son's  tummy was full, I was on overload. While I had always cared about what was  going on in the world, now it seemed as every crisis was becoming insinuated  into my spine. As a mother, I just felt the problems so much more. This  was far from what I expected, far from the gauzy images of mothers drunk on  baby-love, washed away from the trials of the world. Naively, I thought this  feeling would shift over time -- I believed I was just the temporary victim of  hormones, seclusion and a lack of natural light. As Joshua's colic abated,  though, and he and I ventured into the world, I discovered that my new lens, my  outlook on the world, was here to stay. Because of my little love, because of  motherhood, what was going on in the world and what was going to happen in the  future took on a whole new meaning. 
            In talking with other parents, I found that I wasn't alone.  The previously ignored car exhaust was now a dire threat, entering our babies'  pristine lungs. The national debt was on their tiny shoulders. Cuts in  healthcare meant that somewhere, a sick child was going without. Every new  soldier killed in war left us imagining our own, absolute worst nightmare.  Sure, we may have always cared about education, but now, the idea of rats in  school hallways were enough to make us cry. Many mothers I knew couldn't bear  to even glance at the stories of child abuse in the paper -- just too close to  the bone. Far from home, the realities of AIDS orphans in Africa  and around the world made us physically ill. And global warming, well, that  just threatened everything. Never before had we felt such a sense of urgency,  almost panic, about how the world was shaping up. It all became just so  visceral. While I had spent a lifetime trying to change the world, I hadn't  ever felt so compelled to have my voice heard.  
            So, what to do? Too bad you couldn't bottle all of those  feelings and pour them on someone who was not so blessedly,  insanely busy. I mean, really. Come on. How are mothers supposed to  fundamentally change the world in the middle of ear infections, diapers and  sleepless nights? I barely had time to take a shower. Despite my increasing  anxiety about the world, I was so completely frazzled and sleep deprived, I  just couldn't imagine doing anything about it. So many of us are this way,  coping with a host of new pressures. A 1999 study by Duke University showed  that a mother's stress will not return to pre-baby levels until after her children have completely left home (see Cabell Smith, Duke University  Medical School, "Research on Mothers Stress Levels"). It's so  stressful, as we all know, because motherhood is the job that never ends. As  Ric and Jan Hansen, and Ricki Pollycove wrote in Mother Nurture, "Each  day, for twenty-plus years, you do several hundred specific child-rearing or  housework tasks, from reading Winnie the Pooh to doing the dishes, and  you probably go to bed wishing that somehow you could have done more."  Even when my children are not around, I still can still hear their voices -- "Mommy,  Mooommmyy!" I still rock back and forth in line at the grocery store, even  when I'm alone, as if the air needs soothing. In this all-consuming new role,  how do we find the time, energy and mental space to shake the world right-side  up? 
            It's not just that motherhood makes for a frenetic life, it's  that being politically active can also be so consuming. Before I became a  mother, I was a full-time activist, with my days being a non-stop blur. This  way of life was a sort of competitive game among my co-workers. Who can work  the hardest for "the cause?" Who really cares the most? As an  activist, if you're not thoroughly exhausted, well, I guess your heart just isn't  in it. This is seen in a 2005 Department of Labor survey  of advocacy  and civic groups, which revealed that their employees were often expected to  travel at night or on the weekends and encountered "very stressful  environments," low wages and a high turnover rate (see Bureau of Labor  Statistics, "Career  Guide to Industries, Advocacy, Grantmaking and Civic Organizations," 2006 – 07 edition). Not exactly a family friendly workplace.  
            The demands of political work are reflected in my home state  of Oregon,  where I have seen that women often step back from public involvement just as  men are stepping up. After the birth of her second child, once-rising star  Deborah Kafoury resigned as Oregon's House  Minority Leader just a year before Portland's  City Council Member Eric Sten, a new father himself, won his re-election. Ted  Wheeler, whose wife just gave birth to their first child, recently won his  election as Chair of Oregon's Multnomah   County, while the sparkly  County Commissioner Serena Cruz resigned her seat, citing her desire to start a  family. Because of the pressures of motherhood, many talented women are exiting  the political world. Indeed, the percentage of women who hold a position of  leadership on the local level has actually declined in recent years. 
            What does this mean? Fundamentally, the voices of mothers,  perhaps the group of people in our society who care the most about our  collective future, are not being heard. Who is there,  during the debates over welfare reform to push for childcare payments for women  being forced to go back to work? Can anyone else truly relate to the  gripping fear of losing, or not having at all, quality childcare or healthcare?  Does anybody else feel more invested in a healthy planet? Who is there,  to advocate for more school funding? Who is there to push for paid family leave, for legislation promoting flexible time, for Social Security for  stay-at-home moms? Who is there to demand a lower national debt? I knew where I  was. With my sons. Changing diapers. Going to the park. Driving to school. I  wasn't in the room.  
          To be sure, there aren't many mothers in the halls of power.  Out of 50 governors, only 6 are mothers. Out of 100 senators, only 10 are  mothers. In contrast, not only do the vast majority of male governors and  senators have children, some of them have a great many -- Jim Bunning has nine,  John McCain has seven, Robert Bennett and Ted Stevens have six and so on. The  day-to-day tasks that absorb so many mothers most likely have not slowed these  guys down. Indeed, it seems to be so rare for a woman to be a mother of young  children and in political office that it becomes newsworthy. On Election  Night, 2006, as Missourian Claire McKaskill appeared to eke out a victory over  Senator Jim Talent, CBS News ran background information on both candidates on  the bottom of the screen. As it posted Talent's positions on a number of  political issues of the day, it listed for former state auditor McKaskill the  fact that she was the first elected official in Missouri give birth while in office. The  fact that Jim Talent is the father of three didn't seem to make it to the news  scroll.  
          Despite years of supposed gains by women in nearly every  profession, so many countries do better than us when in comes to including  women in public decision-making. The number of women working in the West Wing  has declined a whopping 17 precent in the past six years. We rank just slightly  better than Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo  with the number of women in government, and far behind most European countries.  Even the new government in Iraq  has 19 percent women, and South    Africa, still recovering from a government based on discrimination, has 46 percent women. These numbers can translate  directly into a different life for women and children. Out of the top six  nations that Save the Children has ranked as the best for maternal and child  health, (Sweden, Denmark, Finland,  Norway, Germany and Austria),  each one outperforms the United    States with the number of women in  government. The more women leaders, it seems, the healthier we are, and the  healthier our children are. How else do we rank? To be sure, the United States does far better than many  countries, but the only economically advanced nation worse than the United States in terms of infant mortality is Hungary. In the  U.S.,  22 percent of all children live in relative poverty -- in households with  incomes less than half of the national median -- more than in any other wealthy  nation in the world. In 2004, despite  horrific stories of children giving birth to children all throughout the  developing world, the United    States had the highest adolescent birth rate  among industrialized nations. Would this be the case if mothers were being  heard? 
          Of the mothers who are political leaders in the United States,  many started to climb the political ladder only after their children had  grown, such as the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. In fact, women  leaders who have small or school aged children are not only rare, but also  heavily scrutinized. Former Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift became the target  of virulent attacks when, as the mother of a toddler, she became pregnant with  twins while in office. Faced with criticism that some have argued a man would  never face, she tearfully announced that she would not seek re-election. Had  she stayed in the race, her opponent in the primary would have been Mitt  Romney, who later won the election, finding no criticism for his long life in  politics despite being the father of five. He is now being touted as a  Republican front-runner for president. Do stories like this mean that women  need to sit out of the political process for eighteen long years, relinquishing  the field to men until our kids head off to college? Some people think so. A  2000 national survey by Deloitte and Touche found that 17 percent of Americans  would be "less likely" to vote for a woman with a child under age 6  compared with just 6 percent of the public declaring itself "less likely"  to vote for a similar male candidate. 
          One result of the lack of mothers in the political process  is that the men who are in power feel they can take shots at us for a myriad of  perceived ills in society. Historically, mothers have been blamed for everything  -- crime, communism, poverty, the breakdown of the traditional family and even  autism. Rather than deal with complex social and economic forces at the root of  most problems, scapegoating mothers becomes the easy way out. As Molly  Ladd-Taylor writes in Bad Mothers: The Politics of Blame in the Twentieth  Century, leaders feel free to fault women who stay home for their supposed  laziness and then, the next day, attack women who work outside of the home for  their apparent lack of maternal instinct. We can't win. Single mothers, as  shown in Dan Quayle's 1992 attack against television character Murphy Brown,  are perhaps the most despised of all, blamed for any element of lawlessness and  immorality in society. Would male leaders feel so comfortable making such  attacks if they were actually sitting next to one of us, or if they realized we  might just fight back? 
          Beyond the fact that we are apparently invisible to some,  motherhood introduces many of us to a surprising feeling -- powerlessness.  Yeah, we sustain life, but can we go to the bathroom when we need to? Women in  our generation are used to having choices, choices in our careers, over our  bodies, and in our education. Now, we certainly do not have a choice about  being awakened in the middle of the night, getting to daycare on time, dealing  with a tantrum, or missing work because of a sick child. I certainly wouldn't  trade motherhood for my previous freedom, but there are times when I want to  once again feel like I hold the reins. Sure, my children realize that I'm  powerful when I control snacks and the remote, but does anybody else? Does  anyone else know how much I care about what's going on around me? 
          So, again, what to do? Well, we're already doing so much. By  raising thoughtful, caring, deeply loved children, we are truly doing the  greatest service to society of all, a service that needs much greater  recognition. Just imagine what our world would be like if nobody knew how to  share? How to take turns? How to treat each other? Indeed, teaching kids to be  active with you can make parenting even more powerful. By showing our children  how to be citizens, how to participate in our collective society, we can ensure  a future replete with thoughtful participants. Motherhood has also given us the  perfect set of skills, from negotiation to patience to incredible stamina, to  be amazing in whatever political work we want to do. Further, as the terms "soccer  mom" and "security mom" denote, when we exercise our basic right  to vote, we can change the face of elections. It is a power we need to grasp  with both hands.  
          Beyond this, can we all, as mothers, change more than  diapers? Can we do more to have our voices heard? Obviously, not every woman  wants to run for elected office. I know I don't. Yet there are dozens upon  dozens of ways to make change -- small ways, easy ways, cheap ways -- which can  ensure that those of us who are so deeply invested in our collective future don't  fade into the background. That is what resources like Mothers Movement Online are about -- knowing our own power, embracing our motherhood as a source of  incredible strength, demanding to be heard. By grabbing onto our power, in any  way we can, mothers will change the world. We will. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "A  woman's will is the strongest thing in the world." No matter what  motivates you, no matter what you care about, you can, and will, be heard.  
          mmo : august 2007  |