So, I was at the airport relishing in my love for the BB (I don't have to buy over-priced magazines, newspapers or annoy the clerks by reading all of them instead of purchasing) and reading the latest on CNN. com. I came across this article about Lady O being the new stay-at-home mom. Of course this caught my eye. I have strong feelings about stay-at-home moms, especially well-educated stay-at-home moms. My fellow contributors know this well, as this has been a reoccurring conversation amongst us all. So a few questions came to mind immediately:
Since when is being fist lady the equivalent of a traditional stay-at-home mom? (This is not to take away from her commitment to Malia, Sasha, Barack and their new home...but forreal?)
Has Michelle named herself a stay-at-home mom? (She may have, and I may have missed it.)
Can someone help me tap into the pride that comes with being an educated stay-at-home mom (as apposed to an educated, employed, mother, spouse/life partner who can TRULY do it all).
One last reason I am not really feeling this whole Lady O as a traditional stay-at-home mom is because her appeal is built on the fact that she represents a myriad of women...those who work AND have a strong commitment to family. Sistahs (of all racial/ethic backgrounds, nationalities) look at Lady O in awe and are constantly reminded, "this is one bad chic!" If her role was defined as only a "stay-at-home mom" her appeal would not have been as far reaching. no doubt.
The Closet House
3 years ago
11 comments:
I think the woman who wrote the article put her own twist on Lady O because she needs more validation for her choice to stay at home. I think the beauty of Lady O is that we can all see a little bit of ourselves in her - stay at home moms, career moms, and the single and child-free alike. I think a lot more people will take their own slant on her to validate their choices as well as for inspiration and encouragement.
I watched the O's on Barbara Walters last night and Lady O basically said she committed herself to her husband and her family throughout the campaign, and hopefully for the next 8 years, but she has never been one to sit around and "twiddle her thumbs." I picture her being very involved in a number of causes while still being able to put her family first - essentially the same thing she did while she was working only she won't be paid for it and she will bring more attention and influence to the causes.
I don't really know where I'll fall on the career vs. stay at home issue until I'm in that situation but I think the pride in being an educated stay at home mom is in not actually "staying at home." In these times, it is truly a privilege not to need two incomes to raise a family. So if I am so privileged I hope that I would devote my time and education to causes that I truly believe in. Unfortunately, all of us can't find (or can't afford to) work in the causes that really touch our hearts. I think the freedom that being a stay at home mom would give me would be something that I could take pride in. I'm sure we'll have more discussions about this but I don't think of Lady O or any First Lady as a typical stay at home mom.
I agree with IC, i think very often this "segmentation of virtues" happens when individuals take their own angle on another person/persona.
It used to anger me. Like "how dare they try to pigeon-hole them!!!" But now I see it as an attempt to identify.
I've spent a lot of time "at home" recently. Since I'm predominantly freelancing now, my home is my office. I HATED it at first...wanted to chew my arms off. But more and more I am finding comfort here. (hopefully that does not mean I'm losing motivation!!! lol)
But I totally can see "stay-at-home" as an option. That being said, Even in my main work was taking care of a household and offspring, I feel like I'd be supplementing that with charity/non-for profit work... or heck, with the economy the way it is now, I'd be looking for some sort of telecommuting gig that allowed me freedom and flexibility while still putting extra cash in the coffers.
Me and my degrees are pretty flexible in that regard. lol The most important function of knowledge is its ability to be shared. A life time of experience can be shared and invested just as well at home as it can in the work place.
It just that at home your bonuses come in the form of snack time and hugs!!!
"I picture her being very involved in a number of causes while still being able to put her family first - essentially the same thing she did while she was working only she won't be paid for it and she will bring more attention and influence to the causes."
Ditto.
To answer your question, she has always called herself "Mom-in-Chief." The stay at home part hasn't ever been expressed as such or with the connotations that label implies. Otherwise I agree with identitycrisis--boxes to identify even when the boxes don't always fit. More on this, I'm sure.
Me and staying at home? Never. Why? There is so much to do out in the world. And God gave us grandparents, godparents, aunties, uncles and best friends so we can have babysitters. And I NEVER want to be defined--even by article writers who mean well--as a "stay at home mom." Not even if my husband were running for president (knock on wood that he NEVER does, if I even bother to get married)
And y'all already know I don't make breakfast. Come on now.
To each their own though. I guess.
Hey ladies,
I know a lot of people don't agree with women getting a degree and staying at home, but I'm all about it. Running a home [well] is a business and being able to spend all of your time on that is both a privilege and a luxury. I actually want nothing more than to be a housewife [kids optional, ya heard me].
I [honestly] have NO problem playing that gender role IF I can have the same luxuries that I would have had working, but be able to focus all my time on running a flawless home.
Running my home, a foundation, or doing charitable work would be much more fulfilling than the for-profit work I do now for a yearly salary. I love my job, but it's definitely not my life's work or legacy.
Also, to think that a person with an education can't take pride in the staying at home [to me] assumes that people who choose to stay at home don't have education and that's just not true.
AGREEE WITH EVERYONE...
I WOULD BE OKAY WITH BEING A STAY AT HOME MOM... IF I KNEW WHAT IT MEANT...
IF STAY AT HOME ONLY MEANS COOKING, CLEANING AND PICKING THE KIDS UP FROM SOCCER PRACTICE.... THENNNNNN IM PROB GONNA OPT OUT... CAUSE I LIKE KISMET... DONT MAKE BREAKFAST.... I ALSO DONT MAKE LUNCH... OR DINNER... LOL... I WILL POP YOU SOME POPCORN THOUGH!
I THINK IC HIT THIS ON THE HEAD WHEN SHE TALKED ABOUT IT BEING A PRIV. WHATS SO CRAZY IS THAT SO MANY WOMEN HAVE CAREERS AND ARE "STAY AT HOME" MOMS...
ANOTHER ONE OF THE BEAUTIFUL THINGS ABOUT THE PRIV OF BEING A WOMAN... CAN YOU HAVE IT ALL?
DONT ANSWER THAT... I AM STILL IN DENIAL...
hmmm such an interesting discussion...i ponder this stay at home option every now and then as well. I recently was watching Suze Orman's show and judge judy was a guest (don't ask me why I was watching this with all the other wonderful things on late night television)..but I had sort of come to a point where I thought I just might be able to accept being a stay at home mom, of course still being actively involved in some sort of non profit work which is my ultimate goal anyway...when Judge Judy said something that really scared me. She pointed out that many men are attracted to the independent woman. You meet a man and you're doing your own thing and he is interested in and challenged by your independence and that keeps his attention. You become exclusive and you are still doing your own thing and having a relationship at the same time. Then you get married, and you STILL continue on, both going to work everyday, bringing money into the house, buying the things you want with YOUR money, not having to answer to him (for the most part)...and he is still in some way, challenged by that. But the minute you stop working, and you stay at home, you are, in any way I have thought of so far, still dependent on him in some way. You are no longer that independent woman that he dated or the one that he married. So, according to judge judy, his view of you changes. Now, I believe (well, i HOPE) that the right man will be able to handle that change and still have the same respect for you as he did before, but... Judy disagrees...That made me think... I'm still struggling with the idea...but...what do you all think? Do you think EVERY MAN'S view of their wife would change? Or do you think it is on a case by case basis? If we choose to stay at home, how can we, as women, work to prevent this change in dynamic between us and our husbands? is there a way? HELLLLP!! man..this is like the free advice hotblog..
Good questions La Bella.
I think the dynamic will change in ALL relationships. It will take some time for both partners to get used to the idea of one person bringing in money but two people spending it. It will take the woman time to adjust to being home from work.
I see two different types of independence in your comment -
Independence = doing your own thing and Independence = having your own money.
Doing your own thing is the easy part - by staying involved in non-profits, raising kids, or engaging in your own hobbies and passions, you show him that it is not all about him and you are still yourself. This should keep him interested.
As far as financially, I think there needs to be a lot of communication around this point. There should be an understanding that you are both contributing to the relationship and the household. I also think that the wife's mindset is important. If she acts as if she is dependent on her husband, he will treat her as such. If she acts like an equal partner in the relationship, she will be treated as such. (This means caring about how much he has to work, looking out for the good of the household and if you want a new pair of shoes, considering how that will affect the family financially.)
**Some men are crazy no matter what you do and can flip the script as soon as they are married. I don't recommend that ANY woman ever be completely financially dependent upon a man. There should always be enough saved up and hidden away in case he is crazy. Unfortunately, some men can "hide" it for years.**
Wow, what a question. I dunno dude. I dunno.
I guess...maybe if we flip the question...would it matter to you if you started out with say, a lawyer who was talking about six figures and a big firm and moving into partner....and then all of a sudden he decides he'd rather do hip hop, quits his job, and starts looking for studio time.
Wait--maybe there isn't an equivalent for men. Which would fall right into gender roles and privilege ish huh?
But if there was an equivalent or barely there equivalent flip for men, would we be cool?
Me--not so much. I think maybe at first it would be fun. But eventually, I would go looking for the man I first partnered with--the one who had the same goals I had and similar vision of his life. Whether that vision was hip hop or lawyerdom, you know?
That doesn't answer the question I guess. Maybe it is about motives behind lifestyle changes like that. Am I being a stay at home mom (hypothetically) because I just feel like chillin? Or is there something in it that still appeals to my bad black girlness, like the business aspect T talks about, so that I am the FLYEST DIVAEST GOGETEMEST stay at home mom ever.
Dunno, dunno, dunno.
::plops down on the couch to ponder::
A really powerful post from fave blogger BFP. Catch it here.
http://elleabd.blogspot.com/2008/11/alice-and-rebecca-embracing.html
i think what scares me is exactly what bella hit on. I do not want to have to be completely financially independent on anyone. when you don't work for pay...guess what? i just don't put it above men to not change their view of their significant other if something as major as gainful employment changes in the relationship. even the best man at some point would throw that in his woman's face. can't make me think otherwise...
to answer kis's question, yes my view of my man would change. "i'm sorry, i married a lawyer, not jay z"...i'll leave that for Ms. Fierce, ya feel? (can't NAN one of ya'll tell me Ms. Fierce would want Mr. Carter if he went to law school next week, took the bar and gave up the rap game to practice law.)
lastly, as much as i like other people's kids...i know for damn sure i'd kill mine after a 10-12 hr day. watching those shows on TLC are enough to make me squirm.
Great question La Bella and comments everyone... I'll say this.
Once you get married there's not a damn thing you can do to keep a person who they were when you married them OR change them from who they were when you married them.
That's why most vows give such dichotomy. For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer. It's like you have to love me REGARDLESS (hypothetically anyway).
When you married you marry the person they were, the person they are and the person they are going to become. Anything else is destined to fail.
The best analogy I can use for this is natural hair. Plenty of women had perms when they got married and went natural over the years (or vice vera). A man could say, hey, I married a woman with a perm, go back. But you know you're not going back... and he'll just have to deal and love you for who you are, not what your hair is doing, etc,etc.
Side note: They should put that right in the vows, For kinky, for straight. LOL!
Post a Comment