ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

In India mother is a holi place for a child . A mother is mad for the care of her baby . A mother is a symbol of love , touch ,sympathi in the life of a man untill the death .

After reading Monday’s ExhangeEveryDay and all the comments that followed, I found myself asking “Who is Erica Jong?” Upon looking her up and reading about her literary career and reviewing her work, I found her comments regarding motherhood unsurprising. According to a quote from Jong’s daughter, Molly, Jong’s own mother (Eda Mirsky) created “paintings of her family [which] highlighted her distaste for motherhood”.

It appears to be true, that even Erica Jong is a victim of the “ideals of attachment and naturalness”, or the lack thereof.

I find it to be very contradictory that someone seeking to negate so many other peoples opinions would close by seeking and needing for someone else to say something.On that matter, I do hope that Jong can find it in her self to do her best.

I did not find this article as objectionable as readers who responded in Mothering Madness II. I think Ms. Jong points out the danger of a glamorized motherhood. In America, we are not as responsive to the needs of mothers and young families as in many other "developed" nations. Our maternity leave is limited. The workplace, by and large, is not welcoming to nursing mothers or babies on-site. Before someone becomes a mother she should be aware that motherhood is not all it is cracked up to be in the celebrity magazines. In most ways it is more than can ever be pictured in the media. It is certainly the most fulfilling and important "career" in the world. However, one can be a better mother without the glamorous illusions. I have known women who go into motherhood with the wrong expectations- "to have someone to love"; "It's what is expected of me"; "to make us a family" . . . without realizing the adjustments that need to be made -- physically, emotionally, socially, professionally. I agree that there is a lot in our society that makes mothers feel guilty not matter what they do. I didn't read Ms. Jong's article as diminishing the importance of attachment or nurturing, but rather that there are multiple ways to nurture, develop trust and assure emotional security. Anyone who has read the many books offering advice to new parents knows that there are many "rules".

Given the vehemence of the responses, it was undoubtedly a good thing that you published the piece. We all need to have our thinking challenged and to be made aware of how others think about the issues and practices we live and breathe every day. As the writer of a little red book said, "Know your enemy and know yourself and you will win a thousand battles." Erica Jong may not be the enemy, but she represents a divergent point of view which the readers of Exchange need to be aware of, consider, and be able to address cogently when expressed, as several of the respondents did.

I am unsure about your reasoning behind printing this controversial piece. I see two extremes presented by Ms. Jong...interesting that she would pass judgment on parents (professional narcissists). In the end, attachment still matters, parenting is important-whether it's a Mom, a Dad, or another Primary Caregiver, and fortunately-in the best interest of children, there are still rules. We must be careful endorsing statements such as "Do your best. There are no rules." As professional educators and caring members of our communities and society, we must insist there are a few rules. We must remain objective, supportive, sensitive, and responsive, as we support the maturation of our next generation. The generation we are nurturing will make decisions and choices as adults, based in-part on how we supported them. I'll choose not to share today's article.

I am unclear about why you would post such an article in your daily column. It seems to pose more concerns than answers and and is in opposition to your mission of encouraging educators and supporting families. I always look forward to starting my work morning with your fresh encouragement and prospective, but today I feel a bit depressed... I do appreciate your work and help on a daily basis. But this article was an opinion I wish I would have passed up.

As much as I like Erica Jong, I have to disagree that wanting to give birth in addition to adopting is indicative of professional narcissism in the instances of Angelina Jolie or Madonna. The desire to give birth is a biological imperative. Everything we do, think, and feel is grounded in the drive to survive. It is the essence of anything that motivates us. And, so too is the drive to reproduce, to carry forward the human race. It is completely natural and almost universal among women and men (allowing that a small percentage of nature's genetic programming may have "dropped a bit" or had a glitch). Just because someone is rich and famous does not mean their desire to reproduce their gene pool is any more narcissistic than the rest of us. To work with young children, we must maintain an objective, nonjudgemental attitude. Erica Jong, however, does not have to.

Although there may not be any rules, attachment still matters enormously to a child's later development, and our culture tends to smother natural instincts to be in touch with and attuned to one's baby. There's no real substitute for a sensitive, responsive, loving caregiver, male or female, especially in a baby's first year. Our electronic and corporate age tends to draw us into our individual shells, but babies need our attention and interaction.

She makes a good point, though it is hard to find in all the judgemental anger. In particular I object to the cruel words toward interacial adoption, and the fact that while a few people have always had children for their own purposes, the vast majority of us are working hard to do the right thing by them. But this raises an important point. Lately, as she says, we are in a challenging cull-de-sac of believing the mother is the end all and the be all key to parenting. It is not true, and has not been true.

But there is a counter idea to the one that we are a species that always 'wore' our babies. Sarah Hrdy in her great book argues that humans are unique among the primate families in that we are the only species where someone other than an infant's mother can safely care for said infant. She contends that babies, with their early smiles and intense social bent have facilitated this by charming others to pick them up and care for them, thus allowing the mother two hands for various tasks. She actually goes on to say that in this way babies themselves moved humanity forward.

Sarah Hrdy also describes some 1970's era research on the !Kung (I think it was this tribe), who kept their babies with them continually, because they were in a very arid region. But this study influenced parenting of the Baby Boom generation strongly. We, who felt that our parents perhaps had been somewhat disconnected with the 4 hour feedings etc, seized upon this idea, it fit our thinking about closer connections between parents and babies. And it has morphed, as many things do in our amazing humanness. Many of us feel that success with small children can only be had with the constant attending of a mother. This is of course extremely challenging for mother and child.

Interestingly over the same period we have grown up this system of childcare that both relieves and worries us.

The world and it's problems are multi-faceted. Never as simple as Erica Jong would have it, nor as diabolical either. We are complex, most of us are trying hard to do the right thing. We often just don't have a big enough picture.

I know the woman who puts this together likes to read. Try out Sarah Hrdy's (yes it is spelled oddly!) great, readable book Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding. It is deep, well documented and very thought provoking.