Print This Post
Sep
5
The Plain Dealer published this op-ed, written by me, on May 5, 2005. I don’t think I state any more clearly why I believe parents should share with other parents, “how they do it,” and particularly a parent who is holding out that status as a qualification for being second in line to the United States President.
There’s no shortage of documentation about how mothers feel crushed between simultaneous responsibilities. Earlier this year, Newsweek published a cover story based on Judith Warner’s book, “Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety,” which explores women’s feelings when their career woman role collides with being a mother. A New York Times piece, called “Mommy (and me),” detailed the explosion in online chronicles of parents’ angst. And a new industry — parent coaching — seeks to capitalize on the critical mass of worry.
Unfortunately, this type of sympathy perpetuates the very assumption we need to attack: that integrating motherhood into our lives can and should be performed perfectly, without anxiety and in harmony with all other desires. I say this as a mother whose family would nominate her to be the poster child for Warner’s book faster than she could speed dial the pediatrician.
We need to refocus the debate and affirm a mother’s efforts without applying a win-lose analysis to them. We need to stop pandering to the belief that a mother can function perfectly if only she watches enough episodes of “Supernanny,” digests enough parenting manuals and increases the memory in her PalmPilot.
Take me, for example.
By the time I turned 30, I’d earned two graduate degrees, gotten married and was pregnant with my first child. Over the course of eight years, I took three maternity leaves and worked a variety of schedules at a large, mental-health agency. For the last three years, I’ve worked 10 to 15 hours weekly from home. I circumnavigate the same six streets up to nine times a day as I take my kids to and from school, dance, art, friends’ homes and birthday parties. I volunteer in the schools and attend a variety of monthly meetings in the evenings.
What’s not perfect?
Well, I’ve had multiple fender benders, locked my kids in the car and locked all of us out of the car (both inadvertently), blown three tires in four months by driving over a stroller, a bungee cord and a curb (I was late to the carpool pickup line), mailed thank you cards two months after receiving the present and, this year, I sunk to a new low: preschool guests at my son’s birthday party received candy-filled Chuck E. Cheese goody bags because I was too lazy to scour stores for politically correct items like puzzles or inexpensive books.
Heck, I’ve consumed three brownies in five minutes just exposing these flaws.
And still, I don’t view myself as a slacker (loser) mom or a super (winner) mom.
Why not? Because no matter how many trips I take to the body shop or how many gallons of gas my car guzzles, my situation isn’t tough, or even undesirable. I’m lucky, and my kids are lucky, too.
I’m not single, unemployed, financially poor, in my teens, or physically or mentally disabled, and none of my kids require assistance beyond my means or abilities. To rant about my life as difficult, when thousands of mothers who bear the burden of these special circumstances live within miles of me, would be insensitive and insulting, to say the least.
I’ve also always expected that motherhood would demand that I drop a ball or two in order to catch others, no matter how big or heavy they got.
Where did I get this idea?
From my own mother, who married at 19, had three kids by 26 and viewed millions of fruit flies as a lab researcher. Her intellectual passion occasionally kindled embers of ambition, like when she studied at night to take the law school entrance exam. But my father’s home business consumed her talents, the family needed her job’s health benefits and her law school plans flamed out. Yet, at 66 years old, she still rejects the label of martyr.
When beliefs about how mothers should fulfill numerous roles clash with reality, we need to correct those beliefs. We must not settle for merely educating others — through our complaints — about the pain or impossibility of role integration. Rather than cater to the unattainable and destructive goal of perfection, we need to change it. Through our actions and our words, we must model a balanced and achievable image of motherhood.
How else will our children learn to value it?
Zimon is a contributing editor and columnist for Cleveland Family magazine.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:54 am September 5th, 2008 in Politics
Comments
14 Responses to “Balance, Not Perfection”
Leave a Reply
-
Upcoming
I know more about Palin family dynamics within one week than I’ve learned in 16 years about how the Clintons raised Chelsea. The Clinton’s even managed to shield Chelsea from the media even as an adult working as a surrogate for her mother’s campaign. The spotlight you wish to shine is too intrusive, and you are too selective on where you choose to shine it. In other words, you do not uphold the same standard in all instances.
Dan I disagree with you on every account. We’ve learned nothing from the words of Sarah Palin about how she does it all. I disagree that it is intrusive and not upholding the same standard.
Bill Clinton did not cite his working parent status as part of his qualifications. John McCain and Sarah Palin and their spokespeople have made Sarah Palin’s “hockey mom” and working mother persona part of the qualifications resume.
It is you who is not being fair. When a parent places their parenting on the table, questions about how she does it all are inevitable.
Why is she not being the pitbull she claims she is and come out with a statement that says, “I am okay with placing my family before you but I do not need to tell you anything more.”
I’d respect her more for at least going on the record with that.
You learned little about Chelsea because her parents did not make her a spectacle - or a celebrity. Her name isn’t being mentioned in the same breath as Jamie Lynn Spears, Dan.
Its still early and its not fair to second guess anyone.
The McCains also put themsleves on stage last night, guess you could say when Obama said keep the family out of it the republican brought the family in.
If people want to make to large of an issue of it, thats on them.
Palin agreed to it all, confidence and faith
she is running with the ball and many are applauding that. Be aware she is for sure under the instruction of the generals by now.
She needs to be addressed on the constitutionality of abortion and religion, creationism and science, we have problems because people throw around numbers to the point some are now discounting science as politically motivated.
Dangerous is this, environmental threats are real!
Lack of education and limited exposure, call it experience? Is she objective?
Is she looking to bring her religion into government and implement it into government, she is appealing to the base and that within them is a big point of contention for many of us.
This all needs to be discussed without too much sarcasm and tone, the fetus can not be separated from the woman in rights, creationism is not science its religion. Attempt to change that and you will get riots for sure!
Jill, your history borders on revisionist. Chelsea Clinton was of vital importance to Bill Clinton photo ops, especially during times when Clinton was under fire. He and Hillary asked the media and bloggers to give Chelsea her own private space, wouldn’t answer parenting questions themselves, and the press obliged. In the case of the Palins, the media isn’t taking no for an answer, and the Daily Kos along with blogs like yours keep pushing the MSM to get a lot more nosy. The families of the other candidates have been on display, and Beau Biden and Bridget McCain have been prominently mentioned in the speeches of their parents, but those are not the children featured by the MSM. Instead, it’s the Palins. We already know that Palin’s husband took leave from his North Slope employment in order to be Alaska’s “First Dude” to look more closely after the family after moving to Juneau, and that the chef was dismissed from the public payroll at the governor’s mansion. We know that the oldest son is an adult, and the oldest daughter is nearly so, and that they have helped around the household. We know that the kids’ grandparents, at least one aunt and uncle, and older cousins also pulled together for mutual assistance. Just what other information are you after, Jill? How much information is required for you to be satisfied?
Daniel - if you want to take up this argument, we’re on the wrong post. This post is here in support of the idea that women cannot have it all and I’m exposing how it is that even get what I have now - with a lot of humility and imperfection.
I’ll be a broken record if I have to be: Palin should be sharing her parenting choices and processes because she and McCain and the GOP have placed her working mom and hockey mom credentials on the table as being part of what qualifies her to be a VP.
Hillary Clinton wrote “It Takes a Village,” but still didn’t illuminate how she handled raising Chelsea. Weirdly, she goes on the record, but she doesn’t go on the record. Palin hasn’t put her family out there any more than the other politicians have put there’s out there, and again, Beau Biden and Bridget McCain have been named in speeches by their parents, whereas Palin only introduced her kids by name after the press insisted on extensive coverage of her daughter’s pregnancy.
Dan - we are not going to agree about this.
I disagree that Palin hasn’t put her family out there any more than any other candidates - though I agree that’s the threshold at this point in the way candidates campaign with waving photos of their family.
I believe she has baited everyone by making this statement about her daughter’s pregnancy and impending marriage, says it’s a private marriage, and then has the fiance flown in.
That’s a lose-lose because if you say that she didn’t know there’d be much interest, you’re being disingenuous, and if you say that of course she knew about the attention that would bring, then you admit that she is in fact baiting everyone.
Dan - this candidate is as calculating and maybe more calculating than most, based on what we hear from people who worked with her in Alaska.
Again - listen to the WCPN piece from this past Thursday with the Alaska public radio reporter.
I appreciate if you want to support her, but I disagree with your analysis.
What part of my analysis do you disagree with? If it’s the pregnancy thing, I didn’t analyze that. And I won’t.
I can’t see how your standards are being applied fairly across the board. Please just admit that you are singling Palin out for special treatment.
Daniel - check out the scrutiny Kristin Gillibrand went under when she was pregnant last year.
Please.
When candidates put their efforts as parenting on their resume as why they are qualified , that qualification doesn’t get a pass as far as being the subject of scrutiny.
To the extent that Palin has put her parenting skills in play - and I believe she and McCain and the GOP have by pushing the hockey mom as pitbull meme among several other things this candidate has said on the trail so far - she is responsible for all sides of that image they want to push - and that includes, how she does that all.
If it’s not been the subject of scrutiny before or at this level, then it’s because no candidate at this level has cited their parenting pitbull abilities and nature as part of what qualifies them for the elected office.
I would never tell you to admit that or plead with you. If you don’t see it, you are an adult - then you don’t see it.
I do.
I did a Google search on Kristin Gillibrand (I admit I didn’t know who she was) to see if you held her to the same standard at WLST. All I could find was that you made a passing mention of her as one who would miss Congressional votes in an article that was defending John Boccieri and expressing disapproval of Josh Mandel for missing votes due to military service.
So far, I haven’t found posts you’ve devoted to Gillibrand. But I can find many posts about Palin. It does look like you are singling out Palin.
I can remember a candidate who ran for the U.S. Senate who touted motherhood, and only motherhood, as the experience she needed to be elected to the Senate. She was never governor. She was never mayor. Her name is Patty Murray. Do you care to rip her apart?
Oy vey Daniel- is this about me? Come on. I didn’t blog while Clinton was president - you brought him and Chelsea up. I assumed you’re talking about a general premise.
I’m not picking on you and what you want to evauluate or not.
What is this about exactly? What I write and who I write about?
Or the bigger issue about whether Palin put the mom part of the working mom into play?
Please - stop being so concrete.
You are really betraying your strengths here.
I raised Gillibrand because great attention was given by some to whether she’d be able to handle being a pregnant member of the house of representatives. There have been a couple of others who’ve had babies while in the congress recently but I don’t track them - because they didn’t say that being a working mom was what qualified them for the job.
Here’s what you wrote in your first comment here: “The spotlight you wish to shine is too intrusive, and you are too selective on where you choose to shine it. In other words, you do not uphold the same standard in all instances.”
I didn’t say I thought I was or wasn’t being intrusive - what I then wrote was that I believe Palin has put the mom part of working mom in play unlike the other candidates because she and the GOP and McCain say that that status makes her qualified. If you put that status in play as the basis for your qualifications then we get to ask about that.
If you are saying that I am wrong and that other candidates have put their parenting status out as what qualifies them to be VP or P, then please - name those candidates and let’s look at that.
But to do all this other fingerpointing, sheesh.
People with families make decisions about how they will divide up the parenting responsibilities, and doing so means that one or both parents have to make some sacrifices that others without children do not. In most cases, it makes an individual less competitive in the workplace because they cannot work certain hours,transfer to a different location, or change jobs. Women, because of traditional role expectations have born a disproportionate share of the career sacrifices and make less money in the workplace. We are also talking here about parents who have money to pay for homemaking and childcare help that many people do not have.
Voters do not question how McCain and Obama will do it all because we expect their wives to make the career sacrifices that may be necessary, and they will not be asked to do so. Biden’s biography indicated that he did sacrifice for family by returning home every night on the train to be with his boys. If the “first dude” is the one making the career sacrifices as parent in chief of the family, then they should make that explicit. Michelle Obama has been on TV discussing the kids and telling us that her mother helped out in keeping the situation normal for them. In the movie shown at the convention, McCain’s wife was shown doing charity work, but not working a full-time job with little children. All of the first ladies have been featured with pet causes, but I don’t know one who has held a job when they had small children. So, is Todd going to take care of the kids? We have heard very little about him. The voters know that raising a family with small children is more than a full-time job, especially if one is a baby with special needs. We also know that the job of president is more than a full-time job. I don’t think it is unfair of us to ask how Palin and her husband plan to divide up the responsibilities should she become president because taking care of the kids has been largely her responsibility, at least up to the point that she became governor. According to the little I’ve read about her husband, he worked a job away from home on oil rigs and fishing for most of their married life.
[...] Balance Not Perfection: Jill Miller Zimon shares a 2005 piece on balancing the demands of the real world with motherhood and while this piece isn’t directly about the Palin pick, it serves as a reflection on Palin’s status as a working mom: “When beliefs about how mothers should fulfill numerous roles clash with reality, we need to correct those beliefs. We must not settle for merely educating others — through our complaints — about the pain or impossibility of role integration. Rather than cater to the unattainable and destructive goal of perfection, we need to change it. Through our actions and our words, we must model a balanced and achievable image of motherhood.” [...]
[...] Balance Not Perfection: Jill Miller Zimon shares a 2005 piece on balancing the demands of the real world with motherhood and while this piece isn’t directly about the Palin pick, it serves as a reflection on Palin’s status as a working mom: “When beliefs about how mothers should fulfill numerous roles clash with reality, we need to correct those beliefs. We must not settle for merely educating others — through our complaints — about the pain or impossibility of role integration. Rather than cater to the unattainable and destructive goal of perfection, we need to change it. Through our actions and our words, we must model a balanced and achievable image of motherhood.” [...]