The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined All Women

by Susan J. Douglas, Meredith W. Michaels

Taking readers on a provocative tour through thirty years of media images about mothers -- the superficial achievements of celebrity moms, the sensational coverage of dangerous day care, the media-manufactured "mommy wars" between working mothers and stay-at-home moms, and more -- The Mommy Myth contends that this "new momism" has been shaped by out-of-date mores, and that no matter how hard they try, women will never achieve it. In this must-read for every woman, Susan J. Douglas and Meredith W. Michaels shatter the myth of the perfect mom and all but shout, "We're not gonna take it anymore!"

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Parenting, Sociology, Psychology, Gender, History

400 pages, Paperback

First published March 26, 2004

About the author

Susan J. Douglas is a prize-winning author, columnist, and cultural critic, and the Catherine Neafie Kellogg Professor of Communication Studies at The University of Michigan. Her book Where the Girls Are was widely praised, and chosen one of the top ten books of 1994 by National Public Radio, Entertainment Weekly and The McLaughlin Group. In her most recent book, Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism’s Work Is Done (Henry Holt, 2010) Douglas continues her analysis of the mixed messages surrounding women, and the struggle she sees in the media between embedded feminism on the one hand and enlightened sexism on the other. And she takes on the myth that women “have it all” and that full equality for women has been achieved. She has lectured at colleges and universities around the country, and has appeared on The Today Show, The CBS Early Show, The Oprah Winfrey Show, Working Woman, CNBC's Equal Time, NPR's Fresh Air, Weekend Edition, The Diane Rehm Show, Talk of the Nation, and Michael Feldman’s Whad’ya Know.

She is also the author of The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How it Undermines Women (with Meredith Michaels, The Free Press, 2004); Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination (Times Books, 1999), which won the Hacker Prize in 2000 for the best popular book about technology and culture, and Inventing American Broadcasting, 1899-1922 (Johns Hopkins, 1987). Douglas has written for The Nation, In These Times, The Village Voice, Ms., The Washington Post and TV Guide, and was media critic for The Progressive from 1992-1998. Her column “Back Talk” appears monthly in In These Times.

Douglas is the 2010 Chair of the Board of The George Foster Peabody Awards, one of the most prestigious prizes in electronic media, which recognize distinguished achievement and meritorious service by radio and television networks, stations, producing organizations, cable television organizations, websites and individuals. In 1999 she was also named an Arthur F. Thurnau Professor for excellence in undergraduate education. She has a daughter, Ella, and lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan with her husband, T.R. Durham.

Reviews

[Books Ring Mah Bell · Rating 5 out of 5]

After taking a lot of heat about my choice to have only one child...
And after hearing comments like, "motherhood is so wonderful!" and, "there's no better job than being a mom!"...
And after overhearing lots of "mommy wars" crap - stay at home vs. working moms. Breastfeeding vs. bottle feeding...
I decided to pick up this book.

These women wrote about how eager our government is to build bombs/spend on war, but won't make sure maternity leave is covered or require quality childcare to be provided... (when other nations like KENYA provide such things)

They write about marketing gimmicks. Gotta have your $700 stroller! Gotta have the "in" toys! (if not, your kid will be a nerd and you are a BAD MOM!) Gotta get the EDUCATIONAL toys and videos! (In full disclosure, I did have Baby Einstein videos. Not because I thought it would turn my son into a genius, but because it put him in a trance long enough for me to take a shower, make dinner, or get in some naked time with my husband.) Those nice marketing guys even feed on the fears of Mom. Gotta have the germ killing sanitizers and SIDS preventing mattresses and monitors!

They write about celeb moms and the "pressure" they put on us regular moms to be thin, perfect, and blissed out by having babies. Hey, I'd be blissed out and have 5 more if I had 'round the clock nannies, cooks, plastic surgeons to fix the devastation to the body from being pregnant and nursing and millions of dollars!

They write about the media, talking about celebs loving motherhood. Talking about kids neglected in day care... Condemning the welfare mothers of crack babies, (Think of the cost to the taxpayer!!!) While putting the mom's of litters, er, fertility drug induced multiples (remember the McCaughy's?) in the limelight of "amazing moms"! (No, no cost to the taxpayer for her to be on bedrest for 3 months and 7 infants spending a year in intensive care, not to mention those developmental delays, right?)

They also make several hilarious sarcastic comments, and refer to Dr. Laura as the Mussolini of Motherhood...

They also give a shout out to Anne Lamott's book, Operating Instructions: A journal of my son's first year" Which is a must read for any new mom, in my opinion.

That's right. They keep it real. Your ability to spit out kids does not make you a woman. Your choice to NOT have kids does not make you LESS of a woman. Sisters, let's be real with one another, stop the envy, petty one-upmanship and help each other out.

Excellent, thought provoking read.

[K · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Mommy Myth Trialogue

Popular Culture: It’s amazing to be a mom! I am so blissed out as I take care of my baby, and if you’re not, there’s something wrong with you! Feminism is overrated and anti-motherhood!

Douglas & Michaels, authors of The Mommy Myth: No! No! No! This is all a bunch of momism (i.e., an impossible standard of perfection in mothering perpetuated by the media). And feminists actually love stay-at-home mothers! They just think men should help more, and want more childcare options. Take that, Christina Hoff Sommers!

Hapless reader: Wait a minute, guys – I read a book by Christina Hoff Sommers on feminism. I didn’t find her antifeminist per se as you guys claim, and she cited a heck of a lot of data to support her points. Meanwhile, your acerbic and often vitriolic tone is admittedly bitingly funny and saves this book from being dry, but I’m not sure about your credibility; you can get a bit rhetorical.

Popular culture: In women’s movies, guys can be jerks but the happy ending comes when the heroine ends up with a more sensitive man.

Douglas & Michaels: Drag that heroine to a gay bar where she can meet some decent women! These heterosexual happy endings with sensitive guys are deluding audiences by masking the patriarchy.

Hapless reader: Hey, I’m also not a fan of wish fulfillment in Mary Sue movies, but judging from the number of them out there, I guess other people are. Once we’re appealing to people’s fantasies, is it so terrible to imagine that our heroine finds a decent guy? Is that really so unrealistic? Last I checked, there were still some decent guys out there.

Popular culture: It’s all over the news – kids are being kidnapped! Kids are being poisoned! Lots of bad stuff happens at daycare centers!

Douglas & Michaels: You see? It’s all a plot. They’re trying to get mothers to leave the workplace and go back home.

Hapless reader: Or maybe news shows are just trying to get ratings by being sensationalist and appealing to people’s vulnerabilities. As more mothers work, these will naturally be hot topics.

Popular culture: Look at all these celebrities just loving being moms with their five nannies and three chefs! And look how skinny and gorgeous they are all the time, and how they never complain!

Douglas & Michaels: And how is the average women’s magazine reader supposed to feel when she sees how short she falls compared to Hollywood celebs? They’re sending you a message – if you fail at motherhood, you fail at womanhood.

Hapless reader: I’m not sure how deliberate or calculated this all is, and most of my friends and I aren’t comparing ourselves to Angelina Jolie and struggling with inferiority complexes as a result.

Popular culture: Welfare queens! Crack babies! Child abuse! Maternal delinquents!

Douglas & Michaels: The media sets up motherhood good guys and bad guys, and are giving us a vastly oversimplified picture. They’re causing us to stereotype people on welfare and exacerbating our tendencies toward racism and classism. These images of evil mothers make insecure mothers with aspirations to perfect motherhood feel better about themselves. But really, mothers on welfare are being unfairly stereotyped and really need their government funding which is now in jeopardy.

Hapless reader: I’ve worked with people who were underprivileged, and I’ve met a wide range of people living off of government programs. I’ve met people who fit the media stereotypes, and I’ve met people who were more like the people Douglas and Michaels claim are more typical (hard-working, given a bad break in life, doing the best they can, striving to get off of government programs), and I’ve also met people who fall on different places in that continuum. The system definitely needs an overhaul. But I’m not sure Douglas and Michaels’ image is any more accurate, or less one-dimensional, than that of the media.

Popular culture: All mothers are locked in mortal combat in “the Mommy Wars,” clawing desperately at each other as they fight to the death over who’s right, the stay-at-home moms or the working mothers.

Douglas & Michaels: First of all, this presupposes that mothers are choosing to work when many of them are not. Second of all, many stay-at-home mothers are sympathetic to and/or envious of mothers who work, and vice versa, but this is entirely overlooked because it’s more fun for the media to pit us against each other. What’s really going on here is that an impossible standard of motherhood is being promoted which is making all of us insecure and defensive. What’s also happening is that an ideal of individualism is being sold to women, which is replacing feminism and the sisterhood of collectively advocating for women’s needs. Ha! The government wins! No need to give women’s needs high priority, because there’s no more women’s lobby!

Hapless reader: Yeah, I also thought the “Mommy Wars” were highly overrated and find that most of the mothers I know manage to find some balance between being with their kids and developing a career, even if that balance looks different for different people. I wouldn’t say that there’s an anti-feminist backlash agenda here, just an attempt by media to get readers/listeners/viewers by drumming up controversy among existing social movements.

Popular culture: Daycare is bad. Research has found that it negatively affects child development in all kinds of ways. And look at all those sexual abuse scandals that happened in daycare centers!

Douglas & Michaels: Well, a lot of that damning research on daycares was agenda-driven and problematic. Jay Belsky, a major researcher in this area, misrepresented his findings as well as his status on the research team just to get attention. And what those scandals really show us is that we need to have better daycare across the board, available to all working mothers, not just the ones who can afford those astronomical prices for quality daycare. Government, where are you? Why can’t we be more like Denmark, Sweden, and France? Shame on you!

Hapless reader: I want better daycare, but I’m not sure that I want higher taxes and a more socialized government. I think this issue is far more complicated than Douglas & Michaels are making it out to be.

Popular culture: You have to buy your child the best toys, or they won’t develop properly. And you have to buy your child the hippest toys, or they’ll feel deprived compared to their friends.

Douglas & Michaels: These educational toys are so overrated, and many of the hip toys are also sexist. Stop commercializing the mother-child relationship! Stop pressuring moms to anticipate, and cater to, all of their child’s needs!

Hapless reader: Unfortunately we do live in a materialistic society, and some of this is unavoidable. I agree that it’s regrettable, though I’ll admit that this particular chapter got a bit long-winded for me.

Popular culture: Beware of SIDS and other childhood dangers (that can only be prevented by buying our expensive products)! Dr. Laura is proud to be her kid’s mom, and will rip you if you’re not – no confusing moral ambiguity there. Basically, women need to be independent, achievement-oriented, successful, both equal to men and appealing to men, selfless, accommodating, nurturing, and of course, slim and beautiful – “some hybrid between Mother Teresa, Donna Shalala, Martha Stewart, and Cindy Crawford.” (p. 325)

Douglas & Michaels: Somehow, kids survived in earlier generations without all these products. Dr. Laura is a hypocrite who has a major career despite being her kid’s mom, and capitalizes on women’s ambivalence about working in a context where it’s hard to afford good daycare (boo to you, government) by reaffirming the sexual division of labor and creating a black-and-white world that infantilizes her callers. Let’s replace momism with something more honest and real. Let’s acknowledge that motherhood, though it can be deeply rewarding, is not an endless high. Let’s ridicule momism, which is really little more than an attempt to sell us stuff and divide women, and instead, let’s come together and advocate for things that mothers actually need.

Hapless reader: Douglas and Michaels, for all my making fun of them in this review, are intelligent academics who make a lot of good, or at least stimulating, points. I also found myself chuckling a lot at their acerbic barbs and satire. That being said, they’re clearly agenda-driven and, in their way, just as one-dimensional as all those people promoting the new momism. This book needs to be read critically. It’s also long, and a bit of a commitment. But I’m not sorry I read it, and if the topic speaks to you, you may enjoy it as well.

[April · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a woman who doesn't want kids, this book was in a section of the bookstore I'd never been in (parenting), with a title that doesn't pertain to my life, and yet I started reading. I was amazed - I found a book that told me it was okay to be a woman but not a mom. Go figure! This book is a well-researched guide for mothers and non-mothers (is that the term?) alike. There are two sides to every story, of course, and this book tells that side that the media doesn't particularly glamorize. I admit the book isn't perfect, but it is definitely food for thought and might open your eyes to another way of life!

[Rudy · Rating 4 out of 5]

of all the millions of books out there on what it means to be a mother in contemporary society, i feel that this is the best one for a couple of reasons: 1) it is not a personal account but rather a very well researched academic survey of many mothers from all different classes, beliefs, and parts of the country. It is not just the point of view of an upper middle class white mother with angst. 2) There is a lot of history and it's quite educational on the subject of the various methodolgies of child rearing throughout the last century, as well as the rise of feminism. 3) Even though it is thorough and academic, it is very readable and well written. Finally!

[Annaliese Fleming · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this book is HILARIOUS--it's a laugh out of loud experience for people trying to raise children in this over-the-top era of parenting. I have appreciated the authors' candor in revealing how the media, hollywood and republicans have created the image of a "good mom" as a woman who is totally fulfilled by being a mother and needs nothing else to feel total bliss. Anyone who's been barfed on at 3 AM knows that to be an overly simplistic view. The history of how the media protrays mothering is really interesting, and potentially harmful for those women who want/lead more complicated lives.

[Patty · Rating 3 out of 5]

I may be trying to drive myself crazy, or maybe it is just time for me to revisit feminism. I have read seven books in the last year that I classified as feminist. I don't know why I have headed down this path at this time. Maybe it is having a grown daughter, maybe that I know I need to be more involved in women's issues. I do know there are a couple more that I plan to read.

After reading Enlightened Sexism, I felt the need to go back to Susan Douglas' first book. The Mommy Myth makes some of the same points as Douglas' second book, but this is emphasizing the relationship between moms and the media rather than all women. I liked Enlightened Sexism better, but the arguments in this book are just as valid.

I was especially pleased that Douglas is writing for all mothers. I am very frustrated by the perceived need to pit stay at home moms against working outside the home moms. All mothers (and fathers) suffer because many in this country do not respect work done in the home or work done to support our children. We need to learn from other countries.

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating, and I think this should be required reading for anyone who is trying to raise kids in today's society. We are getting so many messages from so many sources about how to be moms and how to raise our kids and -- most upsetting of all -- how to be terrified of everything. It was startling to me to realize how many of those messages are coming in and where they're coming from. Also read another book on this topic: Perfect Madness.

[Luka JP · Rating 2 out of 5]

Idėjiškai patiko, išpildymas - ne. Mano skoniui per daug pikta ir sarkastiška, nors kalbama nemažai apie mommy wars - dirbanti mama vs stay at home mom - ir kaip tai negerai, visgi skaitant jaučiasi tas pats vienos pusės pasirinkimas. Vos keli skyriai buvo aktualūs man asmeniškai, visa kita arba geografiškai neaktualu - kalbama apie US - arba tiesiog pasenę - visgi knyga išleista prieš 20+ metų. Manau, amerikietei 2005aisiais tai buvo puiki knyga, o gal net ir amerikietei šiandien, bet ne man.

[Margaret · Rating 3 out of 5]

I struggled with writing about this when I read it way back in 2004, because I really liked it in some ways, but in others, it irritated the hell out of me. Clearly, there is a lot of truth in Douglas and Michaels's assessment of what they call "the new momism" -- American culture's highly idealized vision of the perfect mother -- and of how the media and many politicians have contributed to its growth. Their history of motherhood in the media is fascinating reading, and the chapter on childcare is particularly compelling in its analysis of how from Nixon's time on the government has failed to support childcare programs.

However, two things prevent me from being able to recommend The Mommy Myth whole-heartedly. The first is the tone. I've appreciated Douglas's witty style before, in her excellent Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female with the Mass Media, but this time, the constantly snide tone just detracts from the message of the book. It's tough to pick out a particular passage to quote here, but the tone is so pervasive that although I barely noticed it in the first chapter, by the end of the second chapter I was constantly rolling my eyes and wishing they'd knock it off (maybe it was the section about the fictional "Committee for Retrograde Antifeminist Propaganda (CRAP)" that did it).

The second and more serious issue is that although Douglas and Michaels claim to support the rights of mothers to make their own choices, they seem to have their own ideas about the right way to mother, and they frequently denigrate other choices, giving them lip service while writing about them as though you'd have to be crazy even to think about them. For example, they say of home schooling (which I probably won't be doing but have certainly considered) that "for some parents today, home schooling is the best and sometimes the only option they have, and they do it without an ounce of self-righteousness." Great, but since they've just spent almost a page describing home schooling in a very biased way and making it clear that it's something they would never consider ("we have no idea how any parent spends the whole day attempting to impart knowledge to her kids"), it's hard to believe that they're as open-minded as they act.

The Mommy Myth could and should be a valuable book, particularly for mothers who are feeling the pressure of perfection. It does contain a lot of valuable information and a lot of convincing arguments, and I think it's worthwhile reading for those. However, I would have been a lot happier with a book which was a little more serious in tone and a lot more objective.

[Shel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I do not read parenting books. The last one I read was What to Expect When You're Expecting, and I hated it because, as Seth Rogan correctly points out in Knocked Up, "This is just a giant list of things you can't do!" Even when I felt the most at sea, the parenting book aisle repelled me, particularly the books that predicted gloom and doom for your budding Ophelia or your boy who had problems you didn't even know about... crisis after crisis after crisis!

This book was the first one I picked up on what it means to be a mother today. It is written by a woman who is a professor in media/communications, so much of what she focuses on is what we are told as a nation of mothers, and how it differs from the previous generation's concepts of how to bring up children (to put it another way, how I was raised). So, it's kind of strident sometimes. It's strident because she is pissed off.

There are hilarious chapters on celebrity motherhood, a cult of personality still in evidence and growing like crazy since I read the book back in '06. The headlines are still the same: My baby is my life; I've never been happier; We're totally normal... and then there are not so hilarious chapters about bad mothers... welfare mothers, mothers who leave their children, mothers who kill their children, and how we are led to see/understand good vs. bad through the lenses provided for us.

More than anything, this book taught me how to critically view marketing, advertising, news stories, books and movies aimed at telling me what is required of me as a mother today.

It also taught me that my approach to being a mother -- always saying and doing the "correct" thing -- left me pretty much devoid of my own personality; you could have switched me out for another mom and no one would have noticed. Unfortunately for my children, that means being exposed to my dry sense of humor and my occasional irrational anger, as well as my hugs accompanied with tears. But at least my kids will know who I am, who I really am, as they venture into therapy to complain about me!

If you want another good one, get:

[JS · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was curious to see what the authors had to say about motherhood being idealized, even though I knew I wouldn't agree with a lot of what they had to say. I ended up just reading a couple of parts that I was interested in and not really caring about finishing the whole thing.

But I think they had a good point: mothers now are increasingly pressured to be totally perfect in every way--make your own baby food, homeschool, always be patient and understanding, teach your kid to read early so they're smarter, make sure they're involved in 7 million activities, don't have any time to yourself, and did I mention never losing your temper and always being patient and understanding? And lots more things too.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I'm constantly feeling like I'm supposed to be doing more to be a good mom. So I agree with their overall point that there's just too much pressure and it makes life a little bit miserable and guilt-inducing for mothers and even for women without children. But I also do think that being a mother is wonderful and meaningful--and if you're a mom, then that really is one of the most important jobs/roles you have. Not the only one, but definitely one of the most important. And that it does require some sacrifice on your part. It doesn't mean that you can't also have other things that are important to you, but being a mother means sacrificing or waiting on some of those things for a while.

Okay, enough soapboxing. Essentially, I thought they had some interesting things to think about, but the book was too politically charged to make a good read for the whole thing.

[Mary Beth · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am more than halfway through this book, and have been struggling to finish it. I think the authors have many valid points, but I am not enjoying the snarky, sarcastic tone with which they choose to make said points.

It is alarming how prevalent the "celebrity mom" seems to be. She, and her perfect life, appear everywhere, baby in tow. It's as though an infant is the new "it" bag. The authors point out how various media glorify this relatively new monster--but anyone with a good perspective on life isn't falling for the "my-life-is-perfect-with-my-new-baby" line anyway.

Halfway through reading this book my husband and I suffered a late-term pregnancy loss. Afterwards I really couldn't stomach more reading of how the life of a stay-at-home-mom is glorified and anti-feminist.

Maybe the authors weren't actively trying to make this connection. But the snarky tone of the writing made me, a happy stay-at-home-mother, feel like I'd been backed over by the feminist bus. I do believe, as a feminist, that the movement was designed to give women the choice to live their lives as they/we see fit. But the tone the authors chose to employ in this book made me feel like I'd chosen the wrong door--like my life's path is a detriment to the cause.

And right now, i don't need it. I hope to finish this book in the near future, but for now it's going back on the shelf.

[SmarterLilac · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not the book for anyone who is interested in being appreciated for being a mother.

As a proud feminist, I recognize what this book is trying to say about the ways motherhood was and is used against women and as a tool to make it more difficult for women to feel and to be fully self-actualized. But I became uncomfortable with the parts of this book which pretend women in the mothering role are in for nothing but slavery to a man and to children. There isn't a lot in here that recognizes the joys of motherhood and its rewards—or that this role is one that many women choose voluntarily. Or of the ways the hard work that motherhood provides benefits children and families and the future.

To be fair, this is clearly not the book's objective. Women who are unprepared for the unfairness inherent in the way women who are mothers are treated (by society and their own families) in the U.S. would do well to heed the warnings in this book before having children. It's the lack of balance in perspectives here that make The Mommy Myth fundamentally flawed to me.

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was lent to me when I was four or five months pregnant with my first child. I fell in love with it immediately, recommending it to anyone who would listen. As the title suggests, it is about the raw deal women have been given about motherhood. It talks about how feminism in the 70s was about free daycare, and it confirmed what I have been saying, our society doesn't really like children. Yes it wants us to buy a bunch of crap for our kids so they can compete with other children and their crap, and yes it glorifies motherhood to the extreme that you are a total loser if you don't want or can't have children, but as a society we are not really equipped to raise children. Most maternity leave is 3 months, if you are lucky, and most people need two incomes to survive (and buy all of the crap they need to keep their children competitive). Childcare is on of the lowest paying professions, yet most people struggle to afford it, which is what the 70s feminist movement was about. I could go on, but suffice to say, I loved this book and other people might as well.

[Purl Scout · Rating 4 out of 5]

basically a manifesto stating that feminism and the idea that we can have it all has straight up fucked women over. can be beautifully summed up by that scene in the 30 Rock episode about the teamsters sandwiches when liz lemon is stuffing her face with the sandwich while yelling, "i can have it all!" no. no you can't, and none of us can. way to sabotage ourselves, girls. its time to get realistic.

[Quinn Strange · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolute must-read!

[Colleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting and insightful, if somewhat repetitive. Some chapters were more engaging than others.

[Lisa Wuertz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book to be very informative. I really liked how it analyzed the media's portrayals of motherhood over a 20 year period in everything from magazines to news reports. Even though the book was published in 2004 and a lot of the references were from media in the 80s and 90s, I can still see these same trends in our current media climate. I definitely saw attitudes and cultural "norms" (both good and bad) that are perpetuated in the media that my friends, family and I have been shaped by.

However, I did feel towards the end of the book that it was just turning into a bashing of motherhood in general. Because of this, I'm left at the end of the book not exactly sure what the authors' point is other than they want more government spending to support schools, daycare, and the poor.

Some key points that I found interesting and liked:
-How celebrity mom profiles in magazines make a lot of average women feel that they need to/can do it all and still be a sexy coverlette. Not exactly realistic.
-On the opposite end of the media spectrum, most stories in the news surrounding children and parenting tend to be fear mongering like if you put your kid in daycare they will be abused and neglected, toys have all these toxic chemicals in them, child abductions, vaccine reactions, disease outbreaks, etc.
-When something bad happens to a child and it so happens that both parents work, the mother being at work is more often emphasized in the media stories. Women are expected to stay at home with their kids and if something happens to their kids when they are not in their care, it is their fault. The fathers are not usually mentioned in these news stories and fathers are not expected to be as responsible.
-Feminism is responsible for a lot of really great things in the lives of women, but a lot of Christians and Republicans try to make it seem otherwise and focus on a couple of the negative aspects of the movement.
-Stories in the news media about welfare mothers and crack babies tend to almost exclusively feature minorities even though this is not statistically accurate as to actual population numbers.
-In the late 80s and early 90s there were a slew of stories in the news media about crack babies and the developmental problems they would have and the cost to society they would be as they grew up. However, many studies since then have found that effects of cocaine on fetuses were greatly exaggerated and many of the negative effects were often caused by other factors like alcohol, tobacco, poverty and lack of prenatal care. I think the section on this really struck me because as someone that has always had a heart for adoption I've been cautioned about "crack babies" countless times as one of the reasons not to go through the US foster system.
-The media continues to perpetuate the myth that most welfare mothers abuse the system, are part of several generations that have been on welfare, keep having more kids to get more money from the system, are lazy, and are minorities. Tons of research has been done on this and it just isn't supported. These abuses are a tiny fraction of welfare recipients.
-How toys and products marketed to kids have become big business thanks to deregulation of the FCC and anti-trust laws and how our kids are basically turned into brand loyal consumers from a very young age thanks to movies, TV shows, commercials, toy catalogues, etc. And how this brand consciousness and loyalty continues through the teen years. How you are made to feel that you aren't a cool or good mom if you don't get your kids the latest toys (educational and not), clothes and stuff they want.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A CRITIQUE OF THE ‘NEW MOMISM’ AND ITS HARMFUL EFFECTS

Co-author Susan Douglas teaches Communication Studies at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor; Meredith Michaels teaches philosophy at Smith College.

They wrote in the Introduction to this 2004 book, “We are both mothers, and we adore our kids… But like increasing numbers of women, we are fed up with the myth… that motherhood is eternally fulfilling and rewarding, that it is ALWAYS the best and most important thing you do, that there is only a narrowly prescribed way to do it right, and that if you don’t love each and every second of it there’s something really wrong with you…

“This book is about the rise in the media of what we are calling the ‘new momism’; the insistence that no woman is truly complete or fulfilled unless she had kids, that women remain the best primary caretakers of children, and that to be a completely decent mother, a woman has to devote her entire physical, psychological, emotional, and intellectual being, 24/7, to her children. The new momism is a highly romanticized and yet demanding view of motherhood in which the standards for success are impossible to meet…

“The ‘new momism’ is a set of ideals, norms, and practices, most frequently and powerfully represented in the media, that seem on the surface to celebrate motherhood, but which in reality promulgate standards of perfection that are beyond your reach. The new momism is the … latest version of what Betty Friedan famously labeled the ‘feminine mystique’ back in the 1960s. The new momism SEEMS to be much more hip and progressive than the feminine mystique, because now… mothers can and do work outside of the home… And unlike the feminine mystique, the notion that women should be subservient to men is not an accepted tenet of the new momism… The only truly enlightened choice to make as a woman… is to become a ‘mom’ and to bring to child rearing a combination of selflessness and professionalism that would involve the cross cloning of Mother Teresa and Donna Shalala. Thus the new momism is deeply contradictory: It both draws from and repudiates feminism.” (Pg. 4-5)

She continues, “So the real question is how did the new momism … become part of our national common sense? Why have mothers---who have entered the workforce in droves at exactly the same time that intensive mothering conquered notions of parenting---bought into it?” (Pg. 9) Later, she adds, “The new momism involves more than just impossible ideals about child rearing. It redefines all women, first and foremost, through their relationships to children. Thus, being a citizen, a worker, a governor, and actress, a First Lady, all are supposed to take a backseat to motherhood?” (Pg. 22) She goes on, “this book is a call to arms. With so many smart, hard-working, dedicated, tenacious, fed-up women out there, can’t we all do a better job of talking back to the media that hector us all the time?” (Pg. 26)

They summarize, “Two crucial elements of the new momism---the need for constant vigilance and the importance of being easygoing and fun-loving---had now been poured into its foundation. If this wasn’t already an impossibly contradictory set of messages to juggle, the media gave us more. Because the 1980s also witnessed the rise of that now inescapable model of motherhood, the always gorgeous, always sexy, always devoted celebrity mom… In the vision of the celebrity mom, the conflict between intensive mothering and working, between the stay-at-home mother and the working mother, was beautifully and romantically resolved.” (Pg. 109)

They continue, “Celebrity mom portraits resurrect so many of the stereotypes about women we hoped to deep-six thirty years ago: that women are, by genetic composition, nurturing and maternal, love all children, and prefer motherhood to anything, especially work, so should be the main ones responsible for raising the kids. More perniciously, they exemplify… a competition. They rekindle habits of mind pitting women against women that the women’s movement sought to end, leaving the notion of sisterhood in the dust.” (Pg. 138)

They report, ‘Welcome to the era of ‘the mommy track,’ that period in the late 1980s and early 1990s when story after story announced that for working mothers, career success… was not all it was cracked up to be, and mothers were allegedly retreating en masse to the domestic bliss of home… Since the workplace was not going to accommodate the needs of parents, mothers (and fathers) would have to give up some of their income and the possibility of advancement. It was not time, simply put, to reposition women back in the home.” (Pg. 204)

They argue, “The ‘mommy wars’ suggested that mothers could never unite across divides, like whether they worked or not, let alone across the divides of class and race, to fight for a more kid- and parent-friendly society. We were SUPPOSED to resent each other… The fact is that millions of mothers who stayed at home with their kids were sympathetic to and sometimes envious of mothers who worked, while millions of those who worked outside the home were sympathetic to and envious of those who stayed at home…. But as the 1990s turned… there developed a strain of intensive mothering that became unremittingly obsessive and oppressive. But… let’s [first] address the $64,000 question: Why, over thirty years after the women’s movement, do we still not have a remotely decent day care system?” (Pg. 235)

They observe, “The new momism gained momentum in the 1980s, because of media panics about endangered kids, the lack of institutional supports for families, and because of right-wing attacks against working mothers. But let’s not also forget that … the new momism… was very, very profitable. The spread of cable TV, which brought … kid-specific channels… into the home, made targeting mothers and kids much easier, and more incessant. The ever ballooning standards of good motherhood were inflated even further by the simultaneous exhortations to buy more, buy better, buy sooner.” (Pg. 269)

They contend, “the new momism is not about subservience to men. It is about subservience to CHILDREN… Whether you are a married religious fundamentalist, a partnered lesbian, a divorced secular humanist… or single 21-year-old trying to make it in the big city, if you are a female human, the new momism has circled the wagons around you… young mothers today… are simply surrounded … by efforts to commercialize virtually every step of pregnancy and childrearing.” (Pg. 299)

They conclude, “All this adds up to a rather huge block of interests, and a manufactured common sense, to take on. But we can do it. And the first step is to name the new momism every time and everywhere you see it, to ridicule it… and to tell yourself and other mothers you are doing just fine. Each of us needs to take at critical look at her concessions to the new momism, and to imagine where women might be if we refused to keep our mothering on the straight-and-narrow of the mommy track.” (Pg. 330)

This book will be of keen interest to those studying contemporary attitudes toward mothers and motherhood.

[Ryan Mishap · Rating 4 out of 5]

Snappy and sarcastic, but well researched, this book describes how individual media and political campaigns, the backlash against feminism, the marketing and entertainment juggernauts, celebrity culture, religious right-wingers and others helped shape the "new momism." This is their label for the sneaky idea that feminism was so successful that now women are empowered by choosing to stay home and lose themselves in their children--while staying sexy, of course. In fact, it turns out that what we thought were the dated values proffered by the patriarchy actually turn out to be true! Your only worth is as a mother.

Mothers themselves, the authors aren't condemning women who choose to have kids or be homemakers, rather they are talking back to those forces in society who demand the impossible of women, seek to impose sexist gender roles, cajole women to give up their subjectivity in favor of living through their children, and a whole host of crazy-making demands. They also seek to encourage the solidarity, consciousness-raising, and concerted political effort that marked second-wave feminism in service of making the world an equal place for everyone.

Some of the celebrity and political references are a little out of date by now and they tend to conflate fictional stories on television with real life (Douglas is a media studies type, so not surprising), but this is an excellent study.

I realize it isn't the main focus of the book, but I would have liked to see a chapter on women talking back to the "new momism" by not having kids and an examination of how society's pressure to have kids affects women and the choices they make.

I would also like to see a book like this by feminist dads. Hey was that a pig with wings flying by?

[Serina · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Clearly imagining day care as some place staffed by hippies who passed out joints to toddlers wearing tiny Chariman Mao jackets, Nixon declared..."

This book makes excellent (and humorous) points about a topic rarely tackled in popular feminist discourse but which I feel is very important, that being the way that a superficial celebration of women and womanhood and the co-opting of feminist language has been used to put a flashy new coat of paint on old traditionalist conservative values and re-sell them to modern women, resulting in the almost invisible rollbacking of their rights. This is accomplished through multiple angles, but the book primarily focuses on an incarnation of post-feminism that Douglas dubs the "new momism":

"This book is about the rise in the media of what we are calling the “new momism”: the insistence that no woman is truly complete or fulfilled unless she has kids, that women remain the best primary caretakers of children, and that to be a remotely decent mother, a woman has to devote her entire physical, psychological, emotional, and intellectual being, 24/7, to her children. [...] The “new momism” is a set of ideals, norms, and practices, most frequently and powerfully represented in the media, that seem on the surface to celebrate motherhood, but which in reality promulgate standards of perfection that are beyond your reach.

[...] Central to the new momism, in fact, is the feminist insistence that woman have choices, that they are active agents in control of their own destiny, that they have autonomy. But here’s where the distortion of feminism occurs. The only truly enlightened choice to make as a woman, the one that proves, first, that you are a “real” woman, and second, that you are a decent, worthy one, is to become a “mom” and to bring to child rearing a combination of selflessness and professionalism that would involve the cross cloning of Mother Teresa with Donna Shalala. Thus the new momism is deeply contradictory: It both draws from and repudiates feminism."

To put it more straightforward, because the initial waves of feminism were successful enough that patriarchal culture knows that it can no longer get away with deriding women as foolish, incompetent, and their work as irrelevant, it has retreated and restrategized: Rather than insisting that women can't cut it out in the working world, it instead heaps excessive praise onto the domestic/maternal world and insists that women were happier and more fulfilled when confined to this sphere. It concedes to feminism that women are as capable as men, but insists that women are only truly done right by when they take on the oh-so-honorable mantle of "Mom."

"Oh, of course women are free and enlightened and strong and can make their own choices! ... And the most enlightened choice that a free woman can make is to be a mother. They're the only ones strong enough to do it! Working? Uh- Uh- Well, you see, women are so smart that they know that mothering is far superior to working, unlike us stupid men, who couldn't even do it we tried! Ha ha! And besides! Women are so strong and so amazing that they can handle working and mothering if they really want to! Isn't that awesome?!"

Part of how this is accomplished is through the rise of the nauseating "supermom," a strawman version of feminist ideals and supposedly empowering archetype which is the result of patriarchy making a sort of Cinderella bargain with feminism, whereby women will be allowed into the traditionally male sphere of careers, outside lives, etc. ("Fine, you may go to the ball..."), so long as they also fulfill and prioritize their own traditional duties of motherhood, wifery, etc. in addition to this ("... as long as you finish all your chores first!"). The supermom is the woman who "does it all" with a smile on her face, the hip modern woman exemplified by the celebrity flashed on women's magazine covers, the one who is a CEO, a sexy actress, and a fulltime mother to three gorgeous babies without breaking a sweat. Despite her glossy "barrier-breaking" veneer, supermom is actually a very safe woman for patriarchy, as she does not meaningfully challenge established male entitlement in any way; she doesn't ask her children's father to step up more because she's "strong enough to do it all," she doesn't expect the government to force her employer to be more accommodating to work-life balance because she's "strong enough do it all," she doesn't ask uncomfortable questions about whether or not she even wants or values kids because she knows that she's "strong enough to do it all."

But just like in the Cinderella story, the whole point of this bargain is that it's a trick of unrealistic expectations designed to keep the victim out of the public and stuffed in the kitchen. Nobody can actually "do it all." Modern women are more stressed than they've been in decades because this lack of liberation from the domestic world along with the new expectations of non-domestic self-realization have effectively doubled their workload. When they inevitably reach a breaking point due to this dilemma, patriarchy swoops in and does what patriarchy does best: Blame women and women's insistence on basic rights for the very problems that it itself has created. Post-feminism and the new momism assert that this fatigue is proof that feminism is a failed experiment, that women got their taste of equality and found it lacking, that they must make a choice and that choice must be a return to the traditional mommy-wife role. Which, they insist, is so much better and more empowering than having a stuffy old job anyway! After all, all those celebrity moms on the magazines said that they find being a mom more fulfilling than any multi-billion dollar movie contract (pay no attention to the fact that they have an entire team of nannies, assistants, cooks, and maids behind them that might sweeten the deal a bit).

Simply put, the new momism gives women two choices: You can either be supermom and have double the workload (with men getting to maintain their privilege and freedom), or you can be Neo-June Cleaver with half as much work and half as much freedom and power (with men getting to maintain their privilege and freedom). It is right and fair that Cinderella will just have to miss out on the ball if she can't handle both her chores and finding a dress — don't question why she's even expected to do all these chores by herself in this timeframe in the first place!

Advertising, the news cycle, Hollywood, etc. play their role in this scheme both by constantly portraying motherhood as a blissful, transformative experience and the absolute most fulfilling thing that one can do as well as showing the supposed dangers that occur when the ideal image of motherhood isn't properly fulfilled. While putting on an air of celebrating women, it really creates shame for every woman out there. Non-mothers are shamed as cold, bitter, and unfulfilled harpies who have been so sucked in by "manhood" that they don't know what they're missing out on back in the realm of proper woman/motherhood. Working mothers are shamed as selfish, neglectful, and disloyal to both their jobs and their families. Stay-at-home mothers are shamed for not feeling unending joy and satisfaction and for still wanting to have time and identity outside of motherhood despite "choosing" it. The new momism is also used to shape policy, using the excuse that women ought to be home with the kids and do everything on their own used to slash funding for public daycare, welfare, regulation on employee rights, etc., a glimpse into why conservatives find pushing so hard for traditional "family" values to be so lucrative. This fact makes a powerful statement on how we cannot assume that policy alone will be a driving force in shaping social and cultural opinion, as social and cultural opinion itself can be used to deliver a fatal bullet to policy.

Douglas explores this phenomena from multiple angles including television, advertising, and political messaging. She uses a lot of snark and humor (which I think lands great), does a lot to dispel popular myths that perpetuate new momism such as those surrounding welfare fraud, the effects of daycare and preschool on children (as well as the viable cost of these things), the effects of divorce on children, the rise of teen pregnancy, and the supposed overall dissatisfaction of working women. She uses a lot of references, making this an excellent resource for anyone pushing progressive policy. Ironically, this is also probably the book's main weakness. Douglas tends to get a bit overkill with her examples at times, giving like thirty where ten would have sufficed, which makes this an excellent resource for research but a bit of a pain as a reading experience at times. At times I felt myself skimming over entire pages because I felt she had already long since made her point. This is especially true when she gets into complaining about aspects of commercialism, which results in dreary lists of Douglas rattling off toys, TV shows, etc. that she does not like with a tone that sometimes borders on an annoying, "Back in my day..." rant.

She is also at times guilty of that old-fashioned feminist lack of nuance when it comes to analyzing certain pieces of media, such as when she condemns He-Man and the Masters of the Universe as a beacon of traditional pro-violence masculinity based on the fact that the characters are muscled hulks and Barbie dolls for all the reasons people usually condemn Barbie dolls. This is neglecting the fact that He-Man as a character is usually portrayed with what I believe to be a pretty healthy masculinity, being a laidback character who chooses cooperation and peace when he believes it to be possible, works alongside strong women (such as Teela, the Sorceress, his sister She-Ra, and his mother Queen Marlena) without ever questioning their abilities, pointing out their womanhood, or even showing romantic interest in them, and delivering gentle kid-friendly morals at the end of each episode. As for Barbie, ironically, the toy was developed specifically by a businesswoman who wanted to give her daughters a toy that showed them that women could be something other than mothers, as the primary girls' toys at the time were baby dolls (hence her many careers and the fact that Barbie as a character has never been portrayed as married or having children, only friends who are mothers and younger siblings) — Ruth Handler (Barbie's creator) would have been on Douglas' side 100%! It is not that Douglas is incapable of this nuance as she applies it well enough when analyzing television shows and movies from her own generation, rather it seems that she occasionally lets her age get the best of her in assuming that the new-fangled crap the kids have these days must be straightforward nonsense by virtue of being new-fangled crap.

I would also have liked for Douglas to offer more specific recommendations on what can be done to combat the new momism. This is unfortunately one of those books that is very good at laying out the problem but not so much on navigating a way out of it. I suppose that is ultimately the responsibility of the reader, and for that goal I consider it an excellent resource, but it does result in the book coming across as a bit disheartening and aimless towards the end.

Overall, I consider this book a good resource in not only taking picking apart traditionalist conservative gender politics and understanding the role that women's work plays in society, but also in understanding the ways in which feminism needs to be more vigilant of shifting patriarchal strategies. We need to keep in mind that oppression is not about being overtly cruel to a certain type of people, but rather about the negative effect that a series of practices themselves have on those people's wellbeing — cruelty and harm is the logical late stage result of these practices, not necessarily the make-up of the issue itself.

No amount of respect, praise, fanfare, or appreciation for women's traditional roles is ever going to be an alternative to the benefits that come from the elimination of those roles.

The idea that it can be is an excuse for people who feel guilty about the way women have been treated but are too scared of change or attached to their privileges to do the right thing about it.

[Lynnette · Rating 2 out of 5]

While it was certainly amusing in spots, and spot-on in others, my overall reaction was this: "Bitter Much?"

I was interested in the overall message that our perception of motherhood is largely based on the media representation of some idyllic bliss, but after the repetitive over-the-head bludgeoning of the thesis that all women are victims I kind of rolled my eyes.

You don't like the message that your kids get on tv commercials? Turn it off. You don't like the messages directed at you in print ads, don't buy the magazine. Don't want kids? Don't have them. Nobody is forcing women to bear children anymore. We are in control of our lives and our families. We are educated enough to share our beliefs with our children in the hopes of raising a better generation. I just really felt this book was more about bashing Republicans and anyone with any religious beliefs than it was to expose deep seated problems in our society.

That being said, it's always good to read an opposing view point. I just though that the delivery was more negative than necessary, which left me more annoyed than enlightened.

[Kristina Coop-a-Loop · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting and thorough view of motherhood and the idea of being a mother. I thought that the authors sometimes seemed a little short-sided and convinced that their version was the only right version/way of thinking. Also thought they exaggerated some things. Overall, very interesting. Would recommend to mothers or women wanting to become mothers or even women who don't want to become mothers but want to know why other women do (I'm in the last group).

[Maureen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough book which writes about how women have taken in mixed messages from the media about being a mother and discusses how motherhood has been depicted in the last decades of the 20th century. Well written points throughout the book.

[D. Travers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Funny, sharp, accessible. Good analyses of media representations of gender and parenting, and how those stories (and political rhetoric) diverge from actual social changes.

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

As far as outlining how motherhood has been portrayed in the medias over the past five decades at least (e.g. newspapers, celebrity magazines, adverts, movies, soaps and series etc.) this book, it has to be said, is a great exposé.

Personally for instance, I fully agree with the authors that the myth of motherhood (and its gung-ho glorification and idealisation, no matter how harmful for women themselves...) is partly rooted in what Betty Friedan had called the "feminine mystique"; and so I fully agree with them to say that, far from having once and for all rejected such bogus, essentialist view, our Western societies have, on the contrary, felt right back into it and with a vengeance. It shows: from how mothers are being judged and scrutinised no matter the choices that they make to (far more concerning in my opinion as a father and fathers' right activists...) completely inane parenting and childcare laws, making a mockery of equality and equity, we still have a long way to go for the "mystique" to be truly and finally debunked!

Still on the positive side, I particularly welcomed how they are not shy in denouncing women themselves for still entertaining the mystique, by relying, in great part, on a mediatic bashing in which they have become fully complicit. The chapters on the so-called "mommy wars", for example, are as on point as those on a celebrity culture causing more harm than good. This, of course, certainly doesn't mean that they leave the men abiding to a patriarchal culture off the hook! As they rightly remind us, it's the media scares once entertained about childcare settings and mothers supposedly "neglecting" their kids that fully served the political agendas of the religious, ultra-capitalistic Right arching us back into traditional gender roles. Their focus is, here, on the USA back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but when it comes to media scares to serve reactionary politics (e.g. women portrayed as better suited to be parents; men to be excluded from parenting legislations) nothing much has changed indeed, including in Britain (where I live) and where, obnoxiously enough, such reactionary views and media scares are currently being peddled, not by sexist patriarchs but... feminists themselves (but that's another debate...)!

Having said that, I took issues with certain aspects of this book too. Many other reviewers (and mothers especially) pointed it out already, but then it's true: for all their Grand Talk about rejecting the "mommy wars" the authors, nevertheless, echo some of its most obnoxious views. Women finding motherhood fulfilling by itself, and mothers choosing a traditional role of housewives over a career as a a result, for example, are here particularly mocked and ridiculed. I, for one, would have expected better than such laughing patronising coming from other women and mothers themselves.

Another tiring (and harmful) bashing is when it comes to fathers. In the end, I couldn't be bothered anymore to count how many times men as dads were being ridiculed and dismissed as being useless; unable to care for children; lazy slobs doing nothing round the house; cheats flying off with mistresses twice their age; and/ or just plain absentees because, y'know, men can't be bothered about parenting. Now, I get it, it's supposed to be a funny book with a sarcastic tone. The thing, though, is that for academics supposedly concerned about how representation can sabotage and damage whole groups of people, their clear inability to see the point when it comes to how such tiring yet never tired clichés entertained about fathers (neglected as they are since, again, parenting laws are currently everything but egalitarian...) is not an attitude that will bring gender equity any time soon...

On a side note I could, also, go on about some of the most jaw-dropping claims being made. In matter of feminism, for instance, it's one thing to be gung-ho in admiring the leading theoreticians of the second wave. But to have us swallowing that such theoreticians were not misandrists, anti-motherhood, and anti-family is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Shulamith Firestone, for example (since they dedicate entire pages celebrating her especially) was so against paternity and fatherhood that she preached the destruction of the family unit to be replaced by temporary, polygamous sexual contracts; the replacing of natural pregnancies by artificial means of reproductions so men wouldn't know who are their children; and, even, went as far as to fully condone paedophilia as a mean to "liberate women and their children" from fathers. That type of feminism is many things, but concerned about children's interest and gender equality and equity? Certainly not.

In the end, then, this book will be likeable or not only depending on what you are looking for in it. As an history of the mediatic portrayal of motherhood over the past decades, and how this portrayal has arched back women into harmful prejudices, this is a very enlightening read indeed. The more so since it makes women accountable for their own participating into such arch backing too. As an aspiring to gender equality and equity, though, it's, sadly, an epic fail. On the one hand, no mother should ever be scorned or attacked for her choices; yet the authors are doing just that by mis-portraying those valuing motherhood in and of itself. On the other hand, fathers deserve better than to be laughed and scorned at every corner if we truly want to debunk once and for all the sexist prejudices holding us back in matter of parenting; yet the authors fail, here too, to do so by (on the contrary!) peddling sexist, harmful clichés of their own when it comes to fatherhood. Ha! But they proudly identify, not only as feminists but, especially, feminists owning it to the second wave to have shaped their views. Question is, then: has this brand of feminism ever really been about equality? I have my opinion. I will leave it to you and yours.

[Aster]

dnf at 11%

it does suggest we all criticize the extreme pronatalism in the media that we all see, but as i continued to read, i was more and more disappointed.

i could assume that this book was never meant for non-mothers. but according to the authors, women's movement and their magazines featured articles in almost every issue dedicated to helping mothers and their kids. if this book is anything to go by, feminism was never made for certain groups of women, not by their race but by their reproductive status. more importantly, the existence of unmarried, childless women in the movement were explained away by constantly insisting that they were outnumbered by wives and mothers, which was the reason i dropped the book.

before we totally remove the voices of the few anti-family feminists or unmarried/childless women, how about we ask why the authors felt the need to defend feminism by centering wives and mothers in the first place?

if this book is anything to go by, feminism is mostly made by mothers, for mothers and their children, throwing out the childfree women out of the picture. which makes sense judging from what i experienced as a childfree person who looks like a woman, so i have to agree that this book has only made me feel more alienated from the feminist movement supposedly made to support women, not just wives and mothers.

and the boot is never removed from the neck of the childfree women, infertile women and regretful mothers.

[Ashley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked up this book because of an apparently rather controversial article in MacLean's about the realities of motherhood. I have to say, it is one of the best books about women, motherhood, and the origins of feminism I have ever read. It should be included in every foundational feminist course just for its historical and political scale. For those of us who grew up in a generation after the struggles of the 60s and 70s, this is a must-read to get a good understanding of those foundations that created feminism in the first place - and how it got derailed. There are of course some arguable things in the book, but it is by and large not only an incredibly funny and simultaneously scathing indictment of the myths of motherhood, it is also a well-crafted call-to-arms. This book will make you laugh with its no-holds-barred depiction of real-world parenthood; but it will also make you mad when you realize the extent of the lies propagated about motherhood (and parenthood in general), particularly with regard to federal funding and legislation. It is a much-needed reality check for everyone.

[Danielle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was published in 2004 (I was in college), and even though it focuses on the 80s and 90s, I as a never-mother born in the mid-80s found this book to be enlightening, funny, and sadly still relevant! I definitely recommend this book as it tackles so may things like how the media gave us unrealistic ideals with celebrity moms, overblew the prominence of 'welfare cheats', child abduction, and 'crack babies', how 'professionals/experts' sabotaged mothers, and how the government (Republicans shine here) consistently sabotaged women and children. It also talked about how the toy industry and television shows changed the face (and profits) of the toy industry. I think this is so interesting to look at for recent history, response to feminism, unrealistic mom-expectations and what we STILL need to address.

[Abdullah · Rating 2 out of 5]

motherhood is not a myth , and media has nothing to do with it , it's individual conception , it can be a privilage , or a burden . BUT , looking at how life is rinning nowadays , deeply materialistic , therefore two choices are facing mothers : get a job and finde carer for children , or stay home with children and wait for help from the government ore else ???