I find this article by a "bored" mother fascinating -- because of what she says, and what she appears to really mean.
To be honest, I spent much of the early years of my children's lives in a workaholic frenzy because the thought of spending time with them was more stressful than any journalistic assignment I could imagine.
Kids are supposed to be fulfilling, life-changing, life-enhancing fun: why was my attitude towards them so different?
While all my girlfriends were dropping important careers and occupying their afternoons with cake baking, I was begging the nanny to stay on, at least until she had read my two a bedtime story. What kind of mother hates reading bedtime stories? A bad mother, that's who, and a mother who is bored rigid by her children.
Ok, she started on a false premise -- that kids are supposed to be fun. Dunno where she got that idea, but it sounds like having these two children was supposed to be about her from the start. Then she defines boredom as disliking visiting children's museums, helping her children study, birthday parties, arranging visits back and forth among their friends, and playing games. Fair enough. Each of these events is not meant to stimulate an adult with her intellect. They are meant to stimulate and socialise the children. The children she claims to love, but let's move on.
She claims that she is appalled that other mothers adore such things:
I can't say which activity I dreaded more: playing Pass The Parcel at parties with a child who permanently crawled away from the action towards the priceless knick-knacks, or listening to the other mothers go on about such excitements as teething and potty-training. Mind-numbing!
Is this hyperbole or snarkiness? Mothers do tend to care about the details of their children's lives, even the messy parts, but I think when mothers express delight in small accomplishments, part of it is feigned for the sake of the child. For example, we only care so much about how our son's handwriting is improved, but the cool sticker on top of the paper returned by the teacher is quite a thrill to a seven-year-old. Nobel Prize it aint, but we share his excitement which adds to the sense of accomplishment.
It's the rank of that accomplishment that she refuses to humble herself for:
Am I a lazy, superficial person because I don't enjoy packing up their sports kit, or making their lunch, or sitting through coffee mornings with other mothers discussing how Mr Science (I can't remember most of the teachers' names) said such and such to Little Johnny and should we all complain to the headmaster.
At this point in the conversation, my mind drifts to thoughts of my own lunch and which shoes I plan to wear with what skirt.
The other mothers tease me for my inability to know anything about school life. But since when did masterminding 20 school runs a week become an accomplishment? Getting a First at college was an accomplishment.
I'm afraid what this mother is revealing is monstrous hubris and a self-centeredness that most would mask any way possible. "My lunch, my shoes, my skirt, my first at college, my time -- sorry, kid, but you're hardly on my radar screen."
Why I am interested in what she has to say is because she has a very good point. While mothers ooh and aah over many silly things for the sake of the child, there is the ubiquitous problem in our culture wherein the child is the centre of the universe and his ego is fed at the expense of teaching him authentic humility. Mothers are supposed to create a bridge between the child and his father, and ultimately between him and God the Father, Who says two things to each child simultaneously:
1. You are fearfully, wonderfully made and I adore you, My little creation; and
2. Repent! For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
A good mother's love will allow the child to understand unconditional (undeserved) love while teaching him humility, concern for others, and a sense of purpose. This author is somewhat right when she says:
Much of our current obsession with parenting has to do with the cult of child psychology. 'Parents in the Fifties were led to believe that if they weren't with their children, the children would be disadvantaged,' says psychologist Eva Lloyd. 'It started this ridiculous "kids first" culture. We live in an age when parenting is all about martyrdom.'
While motherhood is a form of martyrdom (shedding blood and suffering for the Truth), it is off-kilter in the culture where children's whims reign supreme and indulgence and pampering are the order of the day. But here's where definitions are important. The author quotes a friend who takes her rejection of a "kid's first" culture to this extreme:
Arabella Cant, an art director with two young children, admits that she considered jumping off a bridge in the early stages of her career in motherhood. 'Bringing up children is among the most boring and exhausting things you can do,' she says.
Her solution was to avoid subjugating her own life to that of her children's. 'I'm certainly not traipsing around museums or sitting on the floor doing Lego if that's what you mean by being at home,' she explains. 'I'm loving it, but my children fit into my life and not the other way around.
Now I have an outlandish idea, ladies. How about "mutual subjugation"? How about teaching the child that he's part of a small community called a family -- where dad likes to fish, mother likes to take walks, and the children like a variety of things. In order to build communion in this small community, we'll divide our time, sometimes sacrificing our primary desires to spend time with those we love doing the things they love. If love bears all things, endures all things, then mother can take a book on the fishing trip once in a while, and the kids can let go of video games to accompany her for walks now and then. And dad could tag along since those he loves are heading out the door. They might even all ... talk, and share their lives.
What this article screams between the lines is that this woman was not mothered. Many women are terrified of children (at least she admits this) and their battle cry for "working women" is at least in part an admission of the fact that pushing papers across a desk and handling customer complaints is easier than interacting with the demands of an infant while mother is somewhat "broken." Sadly, Andrea Yates brought the world's attention to the fact that mothers cannot give what they don't have. But the key is not to entrench oneself in brokenness, but to reach out for help. This writer says No. Even her children have written her off, which delights her.
Frankly, as long as you've fed them, sheltered them and told them they are loved, children will be fine. Mine are — at the risk of sounding smug — well-adjusted, creative children who respect the concept of work. They also accept my limitations.
They stopped asking me to take them to the park (how tedious) years ago. But now when I try to entertain them and say: 'Why don't we get out the Monopoly board?' they simply look at me woefully and sigh: 'Don't bother, Mum, you'll just get bored.' How right they are.
They accept her limitations, even when she refused to be a part of theirs. Even though their limitations were temporary, based on age, her limitations are written in stone and she likes it. Sadly, I see that the self-absorption she has taught them will most likely take root -- and they'll wander off to be adults who feel no need to share their lives with her. Communion is not a part of her family, since each has to take care of himself.
Her last defense shows her ignorance (despite a brilliant academic career):
All us bored mothers can take comfort from the fact that our children may yet turn out to be more balanced than those who are love-bombed from the day they are born.
If she only knew what true love was, she would never dare drop a remark like this. She, the apple of God's eye, surrounded by the breath of the Spirit, and entrusted to the loving care of an attentive angel, heaps scorn on "love-bombing." Perhaps if she would stop obsessing about her own accomplishments and hourly self-fulfillment, she would find time to lift her head and give thanks -- for being love-bombed by the Almighty, Who saw fit to bless her with these two boys. Tempus fugit, my dear. Love is all that lasts.
Comments
“People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint. It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."
This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!
That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.
Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.
I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.