Mother Father Father Mother

It's hard for me to give an unbiased opinion of Nancy Chodrow's The Reproduction of Mothering, because from my own personal experience, which is the only experience I can really draw on regarding this subject matter, everything she says is proven false.  In my family, my dad acted as the "mother" while my mom acted as my "father".  My dad, being a freelance lawyer, could mostly work from home, so that's what he did, which freed up my mom to work downtown at her office job as a paralegal.  In that sense, it was my dad who would wake me up in the morning, feed me breakfast, make my lunch, walk me to school, drive me to a friends house or sports practice -- all of the typical "soccer mom" duties.  My mom would always come home at night, and I would be excited to see her and I would always look forward to weekends because it meant I could spend time with both of them.  Both my parents could pursue their careers all while maintaining a close but not obsessive relationship with me and my brother.  So my immediate reaction to Chodrow is that she is overreacting to a somewhat outdated issue.  I mean, everything worked out great in my family, so why shouldn't that easily translate to the other 350 million people in America?

However, it is hard for me to maintain that viewpoint when I put it in a cultural context.  While my family may not fit into the sex-gender system, it is still easy to see that that system is deeply ingrained into American society.  As always, it is best to look to pop culture for proof of Chodrow's argument.  Take, for example, the show Breaking Bad, which features a family whose father figure turns to meth cooking as a way to provide, to hunt, for his family.  Walter is sick and wants to make sure his family has a good future after he dies, so out of a masculine sense of duty he risks everything by going into this dangerous and risky business.  This is shown well in this clip (which features a stellar performance by Giancarlo Esposito) that details the masculine mindset Chodrow seemed to be getting at.  Walter is no man if he does not provide for his family.  Meanwhile, his wife, Skyler, spends most of the series at home, with no control over any of the events that transpire.  She serves as a very mother-y mother: she never has control over any of the events and shenanigans that take place in the series and is always there to serve her family.  She wants what's best for her son and her newborn baby daughter, and the series seems to agree that she is better suited for caring for them than Walt is.

So when I see evidence like Breaking Bad, I can't help but look past my own experiences and agree with Chodrow that there is a deep rooted gender divide in mothering.  We are surrounded with the message that women are mothers and men are not, and it is difficult to separate ourselves from that narrative.

A Westernized View of Motherhood

In The Reproduction of Mothering, Nancy Chodorow provides a basic explanation for something that has been oh-so-very-visible in our society for as far back as history takes us.  Chodorow looks at the phenomenon in which women tend to be the care-takers and nurturers of children, tending to have a life centered around the home, while men do not tend to take on such a role when it comes to parenting and spend most of their time outside the home.  Chodorow theorizes that women have strong connections with their children from the time they are born, beginning with nursing them, so this type of connection stays constant even as their children grow out of the nursing years, so women, thus are bound to the home to keep this connection alive and well.  It is not usually the case for men.
I liked Chodorow's analysis in the sense that it gave me a new perspective on the concept of motherhood.  I agree with her explanation because it is logical and makes sense when applied to real-life situations.  When I was little, I was very attached to my mother and didn't care much for my father; I didn't spend as much time with him.  Now, at seventeen, I still can't bear being away from my mom, but I can go weeks without speaking to my dad and not care very much.
However, I think Chodorow's explanation is a bit objective in the sense that it does not account for outside factors influencing the different mother/father dynamics that exist around the world. The words "motherly" and "mothering" are used all the time to describe women and their actions.  But don't those words mean different things in different cultures?  Not everywhere in the world is the same, and Chodorow's analysis is very Westernized.  Sexism and the dominance of gender binaries are extremely prevalent everywhere, and it is likely that not all of these specific problems originated from the phenomenon that Chodorow explains.
It's hard to pinpoint the origin of something that has prevailed in our society for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.  I think Nancy Chodorow takes a good stab at it, but I believe that her explanation is far too simplistic and objective for such an overbearing concept.  Instead of focusing on the root of the problems that have caused widespread sexism, I think it would be a better idea to come up with ways to fix the problem that is already so far ingrained in our society.

The Difference Between Sims and Humans

Our society's need for organizing things often takes precedent over what might actually be more efficient to fill the gaps in what it needs. It is easier to file people under the two categories- on a form there is only so much space for boxes to check. You are male or you are female. You are straight or you are gay. You are mother or you are father. But, in truth, humans are way too complicated for every single one of us to fit into these boxes. The ideals that are being held on to only perpetuate institutional sexism and, especially in developing countries, holds us back. Children, and therefore our future, are heavily affected by the idea of mothering to be inherently female. Nancy Chodorow wrote in The Reproduction of Mothering "equal parenting would leave people of both genders with the positive capacities each has, but without the destructive extremes these currently tend toward".Clearly, the mold that exists for our definition of family is not working. Chodorow was on to something back in the 70's and it's still a progressive idea now.

On holidays or family gatherings, it is often my job to entertain my 9 year old cousin. Every time, without fail, she wants to play The Sims, a very popular life simulation game for those who don't know. Since she could click a mouse, when she comes over she plays the sims. Every time she begins a new game and creates her household. And every time, every single time, she creates the same family- varying only in names, hair color, and clothing. She creates a woman, a man, a male child and a female child.They are always white and thin. All of them will either be brunette with brown eyes or all of them will be blonde with blue eyes. Upon finishing her household and starting to play the game, she employs the man as either a politician or businessman, and she does not employ the woman but instead improves her cooking and painting skills at home. She has both of the children excel in school, and on the weekends the male child dabbles in creating potions and the female child dabbles in baking on her easy bake oven. Not only is this an extremely boring method of playing, it is quite shocking to me, considering that she is Chinese, adopted by my single aunt. Every week they meet with other single mothers with adopted daughters.  So why does she create the same family over and over again? How far in her head has this model been drilled? The game itself does a fairly good job at not perpetuating norms aside from the gender binary- your sims don't have any concept of gender or race when interacting with others or in the workplace, they can have literally whatever skin color you please- even green, and even beyond death they are playable. 

The virtual world her family of sims reside in might not be struggling with gender constructions, but ours definitely is. Your sim may not have any kind of relationship with their children and they'll turn out fine. Humans are not as simple. Child psychology is a very complex and ever changing field of study. We can't know how these constructions of what a mother is and isn't are affecting us as we don't really have an example of someone growing up without them. Even in a household that might differ from the norm, kids see it everywhere on TV. It would take a multitude of generations of change for these barriers to be broken- as Chodorow wrote: "this outcome is historically possible, but far from inevitable". It will take an active effort to reverse the negative affects of this ideology.

Teens need moms too!

Chodorow's argument was very well developed and she did an incredible job assessing even the common criticisms of her stance on contemporary motherhood. While I agree with several of the points that Chodorow made about the gender roles in today's society, I disagree with some of the details presented somewhat like facts. I do not agree that more modern approaches to mothering have further emphasized these gender roles, or expected behaviors associated with being a mother or father. If anything, I think that the modern family stucture has given more agency to the mother, even though there is of course room for a lot of progress.

In her conclusion, Chodorow also writes that "The development of a sense of autonomous self becomes difficult for children and leads to a mother's loss of sense of self as well." I was fortunate to have grown up with a very caring and close relationship with my mother and I do not believe that this has lessened my sense of self in any way. While parental influence in one's identity is something to consider, children that grow up without mothers do not necessarily have a stronger sense of self. Chodorow argues that the closer the relationship a child has with their mother, the more the child's needs become an "unconscious labeling of what a child ought to need," therefore diminishing both the child and the mother's sense of personal identity. However, I think that the closer a child is to their mother and the better relationship, the more accurate the mother's perception of her child's needs. Especially in teen years, for both boys and girls, a more distant relationship with the mother can lead to more problems with one's identity. Without the comfort, safety, and openness with a close relationship, many teens are likely to feel that they don't belong in their own homes or families and are more likely to isolate themselves or express their frustration outwardly because of it. Many teens who have a struggling relationship with their parents may feel that they don't have someone to turn to and can end up making not the best decisions. Chodorow throughly explains the effects of a child being overly attached to it's mother, but I think that her points are more valid in young childhood and do not necessarily apply as the relationship grows out of young childhood.

Chodorow and the Real World

I thought that Chodorow's did a great job of developing her argument in her book The Reproduction of Mothering.  She went into clear explanation of the claims she made and illustrated these claims with examples.  Besides a few details I disagreed with, Chodorow's argument was pretty well-developed.  I especially appreciated her hopeful, constructive viewpoint, identifying the fatalistic fallacy that women's mothering is biological and unchangeable.  What I found glaringly inaccurate was the assumed statement that the whole book is found on explaining and changing: that women parent and men basically don't.

Now I do understand that she to an extent recognizes the generalization made in this assumption, but her argument as a whole is still shaped around explaining an idea that is fundamentally unstable.  At least in my own life, I feel that my father has parented me greatly.  While he may not cook and clean often like my mom, my dad has very intentionally nurtured me - emotionally, mentally, and morally.  The raising of myself was undoubtedly a team effort by my two parents and would be drastically different if my dad's parenting were to be removed from the picture.  And, in regards to Chodorow's assertions about the mothering trend in the past, I am sure my father would assert that he grew up in a culture where the father's role as a parent was highly valued.

While I would say that my family is unique in several ways, including some divergence from standard American gender stereotypes, I don't think that it is alone in this case.  Though I can't judge any other family without having been a part of it or a close observer, I would definitely say that I have noticed what appears to be parenting and important emotional ties between the child and the father.  Perhaps this sign of dedication to child-rearing isn't quite as prevalent as I think it is; maybe it is somewhat unique to my socioeconomic status.  Even if this were the case, however, Chodorow's societal generalizations does not allow room for such a case.  In fact, her implications of widespread absence of male parenting and unhealthy female parenting came to a glaring point in her line found towards the bottom of pg. 217 in her Afterword: "...children are better off in situations where love and relationships are not a scarce resource controlled and manipulated by one person only."  The idea that in most families love is "scarce" and "manipulated" by an apparently tyrannical and unstable mother appears to me to be rather and inaccurate - and, to be frank, insulting.

Chodorow's theory does manage apply to Toni Morrison's Beloved pretty well.  This is not because of a work-oriented, pedophobic father, however.  The problems of Denver, the younger daughter of the story, that could be explained through Chodorow's theory stem from the absolute lack of her father's presence and being isolated to only her mother and, for some of her life, her grandmother (both of which are actually unstable for unrelated, very understandable reasons).  Under these circumstances, where the absence of affection from the second parent is undeniable because he is literally not there, Chodorow's theory does perfectly.

Mothering vs. Fathering?

In Nancy Chodorow’s, The Reproduction of Mothering, she describes how the concept of “mothering” has become entirely female. She explains that women have a certain type of connection to their children, which makes their primary location in the home (as oppose to outside like the father).

Madison mentioned in a previous that there is an increased separation between men and women because of their social location; the public (or outside) is seen as more masculine, while the home is seen as more feminine. I think maybe one reason why many fathers don’t take on the role of mothering is perhaps because they are afraid of losing the sort of “masculine” qualities that their social location gives them.

Although I do agree that fathers should spend more time with their children, I also believe that there is a reason why mothers and fathers have continued to maintain their current roles. There are certain things that only a mother can give to a child, just like there are certain things that only a father can give to a child. Chodorow does make a very compelling argument, and I agree that mothering becomes a type of cycle because the concept is constantly passed down to the next generation. However, current social constructs make it difficult for mothers and fathers to break the cycle, which leaves Chodorow's "dilemma" somewhat unsolved.

The Economics of Parenthood

In The Reproduction of Motherhood, Nancy Chodorow argues that, "mothering," or nurturing children, has become a female term that perpetuates inequalities between men and women. I find her argument to be compelling and accurate. As she points out in her introduction, many of the extreme gender inequalities of modern times stem from the exclusivity of breastfeeding to women. Before the invention of breast pumps and formulas, most women truly had to remain with young infants. By binding most women to their homes, breastfeeding established gender separation, which grew into gender inequality.

I think a large part of Chodorow's theory is economic in nature. Before industrialization, families existed as individual economic units so men had a larger home presence. However, as factories drew workers away from homes, men were able to leave to home to make money while women with infants remained committed to the home. Thus, this separation established the idea of the nurturing mother and the breadwinning father. An increasingly money-oriented society favored the latter. History explains the gender roles that society has perpetuated.

As I read Chodorow's argument, I found myself considering the concept of child support. A single mother receiving child support from a child's father is an extreme example of the model of a nurturing mother and distant, money-earning father. However, this substitution of child support for a father's presence makes it seem entirely unfair to reduce the role of a father to simply the earner of money. In the same sense, it seems unfair to value a mother's capabilities of taking care of children without recognizing her ability to contribute to the family in other ways and to achieve different personal goals. Chodorow is right that assigning gendered roles to parents in a male/female relationship, particularly with regards to economic responsibilities, is detrimental to both parties.

The Role of a Mother

Chodorow's argument in the Reproduction of Mother's is that the system of mother's caring for the children in itself gives males the power. She also highlights the fact that mother's who had problems with their own mothers become overly attached to their children, daughters specifically. On the contrary, mothers who have involved and substantial lives outside of the home have healthy and beneficial relationships with their children. Chodorow's solution to this self-perpetuating patriarchy is quite simple really: equal parenting. If a child feels equal attachment to each parent, neither gender will be propelled towward the extreme sets, where males feel inadequate and females feel attached too strongly toward their children. While we have been making great bounds in progressive relationships, I feel that truly equal parenting will be difficult for people to practice. From the start of life, the mother nurses the child. A mom has maternity leave for far longer than a dad has paternity leave. That being said, it is crucial that parents try and adopt this concept of equal parenting, because as shown in Beloved, the consequences can be disastrous.

In Beloved, Sethe has mommy issues. Her mother was never around, at least in the nurturing way that Sethe needed. Consequently, Sethe never really knew how to raise children. Sure, she tried as hard as she could within the system, but she took it a bit too far. I  mean, she killed one of them in the name of safety. What I think is even more supportive of Chodorow's theory is Sethe's reaction when Beloved returns. Once Sethe discovers that Beloved is her child, all of her life outside Beloved stops. She quits her job, she never sees anyone outside the house, and she doesn't even eat. She is all consumed with appeasing Beloved and being there for her in the way she felt she had failed her before. In this over-involved relationship, Beloved regresses and becomes child-like and demanding. Neither the mother nor the daughter can escape this cycle of unhappiness, but then again, neither knows they are unhappy. While Sethe had no male counterpart to help her in raising Beloved, their relationship serves as a telling example of the dangers of over-involved mothers. Watch out, tiger moms,

Can Zombies Free Women From The Mothering Role?

In Nancy Chodorow's The Reproduction of Mothering, Chodorow seeks to describe how the social construction of "mothering" and the patriarchial society we live in came to be, as well as how people need to move toward less rigid gender roles.

Chodorow first seeks to give backround to how "mothering" came to be. She acknowledges that throughout history women have been confined to the home because of their biological connection to the children. As time has progressed and science has started to dispute the validity of women being the sole nurturer because of biological predispositions our patriarchal society has moved to keep women in the home by creating the idea that women must be nurturing and caring, while men seek to stay in the public sphere.

Chodorow says the to combat this social construction of gender roles people must move towards coparenting as well as attempting to escape the endless cycle of mymicing the same gender parent.

I think that presently, although not  anywhere near perfect, our society has taken steps towards gender equality. The media in America controls many people's perception of gender, and how men and women are supposed to act. Many of the mainstream TV shows advertise women as the mother and men as the provider. The Walking Dead has slowly but surely started to challenge these norms.

In the beginning of the show there were still plenty of mothers mothering, but as people started to fall victim to zombie attacks the mothering role started to erode. In the current season there are no mothers. Women are not confined to caring for the camp or the children, but have equal say in what goes. They are on the frontlines killing zombies side by side with men.

There is a baby on the show named Judith. Judith's birth mother died, and in almost every scene she is being held by a man. The man in most cases is the very strong and masculine Tyrese. Tyrese takes pride in caring for Judith and mothers her as well as any mother could during a zombie apocolypse.

These subtle changes to what most people believe to be normal are actually quite brilliant. The Walking Dead shows that women are equally as capable as men when it comes to killing and protecting themselves, and men can make great mothers.

It pains me that women can only escape the mothering role when confronted with a zombie apocolypse, but hey progress is progress.

Add Gender to the Melting Pot

In short, there are two main concepts to grasp if we are to understand why women still mother. First, babies admire and emulate their same-sex parent. So females emulate their nurturing mothers, and males emulate their distant fathers. In this way, females grow up to value and seek out nurturing, and males grow up to value and seek out impersonal affairs. This explains the dichotomy, but not the hierarchy.
Another concept is necessary to explain why men are commonly thought of as superior. As we have learned, women often psychologically value nurturing roles in society. These roles are commonly found in the private sphere of life, confined to the home. Men often psychologically value impersonal roles in society. These roles are commonly found in the public sphere of life, outside the home. In societal structures around the world, most notably Western capitalism, the public sphere dominates domestic, thus men dominate women.

With an understanding of the psychological models that promote the social perpetuation of gender roles, and an understanding of the political and societal structures that qualify the binary, it is simple to see why gender discrepancies exist today.

I believe that, while these concepts hold true in American society, the system is flawed. By this I mean that an extreme differentiation of gender roles is unhealthy for individuals for society. Women need immersion in the public sphere, and men need deep personal connection. Society needs a nurturing perspective in public policy, business affairs, war. Children need a fatherly figure and the home needs refurbishing.

So men, consider taking a sabbatical and spending time with your kids. Those workhorses staying late in the office next door may be missing out on the most important facet to their lives-- their families.

Women, consider applying for that position. Those savvy policy-writers may be overlooking the need to nurturing those in need when they next re-allocate government funds.

Are you my mother?

I don't know if anyone else read that book as a child, but Are You My Mother by P.D. Eastman was a household staple for me. It details the story of a lost little duck-like bird who asks everything from cats to cows to airplanes if they are his mother. Fear not, he is eventually reunited with his actual mother, a bird, much like you would expect.

The point of bringing it up is to highlight the initial blindness the baby bird has: the extent of his definition of "mother" is the word alone. In The Reproduction of Motherhood by Nancy Chodorow, she explores how "mothering" is a female term, and has self-perpetuated from a biological statement to a social construct, making the women implicitly the primary parent. I agree that the word "mother" has expanded to mean more than merely the person who gave birth to you, but I don't believe that it discourages men from caring for their children in an intimate way. Perhaps I'm being optimistic, but I think that whether or not the socially imposed male/female parenting scheme affects the children depends on the parents themselves.

Before the hatchling bird has any idea of who his mother is, he asks around in ways humorous and somewhat bizarre. Obviously, an old car is not his mother, but if for some odd reason it declared it was and began to care for him, the hatchling would have complied. Society does, absolutely, assume that the "mothering" figure in a household will be female, but at the very beginning, children have no real preference except for strictly biological things they rapidly outgrow. Mothering is a learned construct, and I believe that with so many new household contents and developments, the male/female parenting binary will collapse as long as we maintain as open minds as the hatchling's.

Here, a lioness decided to mother a baby oryx, one of the animals she would usually eat. If animals can adopt their prey and mother them, I think as humans we need to get with the program and give up on gender-dividing parenting privileges. Chodorow makes a compelling argument for why mothering is typically female, and I think the next step from her discussion is a call to action. Our children should all be taught to mother, and what roles they choose to play in their children's lives should be independent of species--er--gender constraints.