I Was Drinking When I Wrote This

January 30, 2007

*Edited below! Because this post wasn’t quite long enough!

If you were cruising the mom-and-dad-o-sphere this past weekend, you no doubt became aware of the crime against sanity that was last week’s Today Show discussion on mothers who tipple (a discussion that included our very own Melissa and Stefanie). Apparently, mothers who drink alcohol in front of their children – any drink, any amount – are compromising the well-being of those children. From what I understand – not having seen the episode – we’re not talking martini binges or raging alcoholism here. We’re talking wine-coolers during playdates, a beer in the backyard, cocktails before dinner. We’re talking about the ordinary indulgences of a normal adult life.

Again, to be clear, I didn’t see the episode. I wouldn’t have known about it if discussion of it hadn’t exploded in our corner of the blogosphere, and everything that I do know about it has been gleaned from that (excellent) discussion. You can watch it, if you like, here. I simply can’t bring myself to watch; I’m certain that my head would explode from the nonsense of it all.

In any case, I don’t want to debate, here, the merits of the argument on either side. I was prepared to dismiss the discussion entirely; it was just, I thought, one more absurd scuffle in the ongoing effort to stir up controversy around and about moms. Ignore it, I thought. Let it die. But it’s been nagging at me, causing me to stare out of windows and furrow my brow and pick at my fingernails until my husband asks, are you worrying again? Yes, I’ve been worrying. But why?

Why why why… well, to begin, because this is not just about stirring up controversy on slow news days; this is not just another salvo in the so-called Mommy Wars. This kind of suggestion – that mothers need to watch their behaviour, that the terms of motherhood are a public concern, that we need, as a society, to keep watch on how mothering is done for the sake of the children – is a very old, very powerful, very dangerous suggestion. It is one that, if it evolves from suggestion to idea to value or norm or (god help us) policy, never brings any good to women.

The ancient Romans had a word for feminine virtue: pudicitia. They distinguished feminine virtue, pudicitia, from masculine virtue, virtu (which, if you’re interested, means, literally, manliness): virtu was public, and spirited; pudicitia was private, and reserved. Pudicitia was modesty, piety, devotion to home; to be pudica was to follow a carefully prescribed set of norms and values that served the greater interest of home and family. This, according to the Romans, was absolutely integral to the well-being of the state – not least because children were understood to be future citizens. Any negative influence might corrupt these future citizens, and any such corruption would aim straight at the heart of the community. For this reason (among others relating to the integrity of home and family v.v. the larger community), the behaviour of women as wives and mothers needed to be circumscribed and constrained. Tightly constrained. And it wasn’t law that effected the tightest constraints – it was social pressure. (This, many commentators have said, was the particular genius of the Roman republic.)

Talking about the treatment of women under the Romans might seem to be just so much pedantic digging on my part – it was, after all, a very long time ago, and a very different social and political culture. But the example of the Romans – and their understanding of the necessary distinctions between public and private virtue, and the health of the private (the family) as necessary to the health of the public – had a tremendous influence on modern political thought, on republican political thought. And it should be clear to anyone who follows debates about motherhood that a very strong whiff of these ideas lingers over our heads.

We speak in slightly different terms, of course. For us, it’s all about what is best for the children, qua children: is stay-at-home-motherhood best for the children? Are happy, fulfilled parents – working or otherwise – best for the children? This is all fine, as matters of debate – for the most part, I think, reasonable people agree that happy, secure families can come in a variety of forms. There’s no real danger of anyone seriously suggesting that women be made to stay home, because it’s clear to reasonable people that stay-at-home-motherhood isn’t necessary to the well-being of children nor to the integrity of the family. Phew.

But doesn’t it become a slightly different story – a slightly more dangerous story – when we wander into the specifics of the behaviour of motherhood? We wouldn’t seriously propose that all families organize themselves in the exact same way, regardless of our personal opinions concerning the merits and disadvantages of SAH/WAH/WAH models, because we recognize that every family faces different circumstances, has different needs, etc. etc. There’s plenty of space to get relativist about the big questions. But when it comes to the little questions – should mothers (and it is, always, always mothers; that’s another issue entirely) avoid specific behaviours, avoid exposing their children to certain influences? – I think that we are more inclined to get prescriptively judgmental (mothers should do this, should not do that). And when certain judgments achieve some broad concensus, they may well become social pressures.

It’s tempting to dismiss this particular, and hopefully marginal, judgment – the purported risk to children posed by mothers sipping chardonnay at playdates – as harmless. No reasonable adult would agree that responsible consumption of alcohol corrupts children, right? But this argument got airtime – Today Show airtime – and it was, from I understand, flogged pretty seriously, and ‘reasonable’ arguments ignored or dismissed. And therein lays a problem: ‘reason’ gets suspended, sometimes, when we talk about what’s best for children. There’s such emotive force to the question, does this put our children at risk? Don’t we all feel, deeply, in our guts, that when there’s any question of possible danger to children, we need to set aside issues of our own personal interests and preferences and address that question as fully as possible? That the safety and well-being of our children trumps any other concern – including the concern to protect our own quote-unquote right to do what we want? What if it could be demonstrated that exposure to moderate drinking has a negative effect upon children? What then? Mightn’t we all close ranks and tut-tut-tut those women who persist in selfishly pursuing their own pleasures at cost to their children?

Women who buy Bratz Dolls for their daughters are, for example, amply tutted in certain circles. I have certainly been guilty of tutting on the issue of the sexualization of young children because I take it to be self-evident that toys and ads and such that promote early sexuality are potentially harmful to children. I’ll admit, under pressure, that in my heart of hearts I wish that there would be stronger social pressure against this. I wish that mothers would feel socially constrained to not dress little girls up in tarty outfits. But isn’t this just so much hypocrisy, given my frustration with those who would tut-tut social drinkers? If the difference is only that I feel strongly that I am right in my opinions (that I am convinced that mine are not opinions, but expressions of fact), and that those opinions should prevail, isn’t there something illiberal – anti-liberal – about my position?

Isn’t there, maybe, a slippery slope from my argument that tarty clothes and Bratz Dolls for toddlers are potentially harmful to the argument that mothers should watch how they themselves dress? How many sexual partners they should have, if they are not married or partnered? How much physical affection a parent couple should demonstrate in front of their children? Doesn’t the line between what I think is reasonable and what I think is absurd in matters of social judgment threaten to run pretty short?

My main point is this: in prescriptively judging each other, in insisting upon certain sanctities in the realm of motherhood and the family, we risk enclosing ourselves much more securely than any Roman ever imagined. This is what alarms me about the Today Show propogating its judgment against mothers indulging in a little social drinking. But I’m also alarmed by the possibility that I might be complicit in exactly this sort of judgment: that however much I might bleat my own defense – I’m not saying that mothers who buy Bratz dolls for their kids are BAD; I’m just saying that I wouldn’t do it myself (she said as she slurped her martini) – I am, end of the day, judging, and, maybe, quietly wishing that everyone would make judgments a little bit more in line with my own.

And that, my friends, is what drives me to drink. Sic semper tyrannus.

*Late-breaking edit. Joy said this in the comments: “if we say ‘mothers should not judge one another. period.’ doesn’t that have a certain flattening effect? doesn’t this type of moral relativism deflate activism and debate and not allow us to critique one another or certain ideals?” Yes, and yes – there was a whole digression in this post, at one point, on whether a certain variety of judgment is desirable and even necessary, but the post was already – ahem – long enough. So I guess that there’ll have to be a part two. But in the meantime, what do you think? Shouldn’t some space be preserved for judgment (even, or perhaps especially, for judgments we don’t like), just to keep debate alive?
Related Posts with Thumbnails
Share!
  • email
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

    { 60 comments }

    Lisa February 1, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    I’m sick of the judging as well – which means I am sick of myself, because I rank right up there with the Queen of Judgment herself (who I think may be my SIL, but I digress).

    The Bratz thing – I refuse to buy the kids them. Unfortunately, they get them for gifts. What turned me off was the one who was wearing a THONG two years ago. Holy hell, man! But you’re right – those products, plus the clothes that are out nowadays, are contributing to it all. My husband’s relative gives us her 6 year old daughter’s clothes…I can’t believe the bras and bikinis and other clothes that are in this thing. My kids look like they’re from the 1800′s compared to some of the other kids in their classes. Plus giving the kids cell phones and laptops at the age of 6? Come on.

    Uh oh. There’s the judging again.

    Raising my glass to you. :)

    ewe are here February 1, 2007 at 7:45 pm

    It’s interesting living in the UK / Europe. Having a glass of wine or two around your kids isn’t the big ‘issue’ it is back home. Kind of nice.

    As for judging other parents (not just moms), I try really hard not to do that. But I do think there should be ‘discussion’ once in a while…

    Great post. Glad I finally managed to sit down and read it!

    Mel February 1, 2007 at 8:04 pm

    I have about sixty thousand thoughts on this running through my head, but the first and foremost thought is very simple, and it relates to Mommy Wars as a whole:
    The reason we criticize and judge those around us is to feel bigger, better, more important or smarter than someone. We wish to feel superior. End of line. Full stop.
    Therefore, wouldn’t it make the most sense to take in the negative commentary about ourselves or our friends and loved ones, process it against our own moral compass, and discard that which doesn’t jibe? Because frankly, there will always be some person with an inferiority complex out there trying to make themselves feel bigger by belittling others.
    Down With Mommy Wars!

    Scattered Mom February 1, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    I just have to say this much…

    I have a friend who is an incredible mother, who I admire and respect, who allows her daughter to have Bratz dolls. As she has said, they ARE, after all, only a doll-not a moral compass. One doll alone isn’t going to encourage that sort of behavior, it’s the behavior that the parents model and what sort of relationship they have with their daughter that makes the biggest impact.

    I personally am not sure if I would buy them or not if I had a daughter.

    Drinking? I think that this whole issue is being blown out of proportion. I doubt that having a glass of wine while the kids play really is anything new-and seriously, it makes me wonder why nobody has mentioned the Dad that watches the kids and has a few beers. I don’t see the difference.

    Emily February 1, 2007 at 11:18 pm

    I’ve been following this debate thru Melissa’s website (Suburbanbliss) and watched The Today show.

    I have friends who drink & friends who don’t. It doesn’t bother me if they do/don’t drink in front of their kids. I’m not going to judge them.

    My biggest “beef” is what about Chuck-E-Cheese…? They serve alcohol to parents. Sporting events serve alcohol. Lots of family-oriented events serve alcohol.

    soleclaw February 2, 2007 at 2:37 am

    Just watched the segment, and wasn’t aware of this controversy at all until I read about it here. You basically hit the nail on the head. And, whether we like to admit it or not, it really is a relative issue. What works for one may not work for the other.

    I think the segment on the Today Show should have been longer, as one commenter mentioned a lot of info got “shovelled”. It seemed as though the “expert” was bashing the mother/blogger who was there. I found myself wanting to interject so many times and then it was over. The piece made all the mothers sipping their wine seem like alcoholics, and one would assume they have drinks at all their playdates. I’m sure that isn’t the case, however.

    PunditMom February 2, 2007 at 11:03 am

    While the debate on this question may be ludicrous, I agree with HBM about the concern over the larger issue — finding ways to to societally lecture mothers about “appropriate” behavior.

    There’s still a pretty large segment of society that believes women should only have certain rights and be limited to certain types of behavior. When some of those ideas get national play, it sets us all back.

    Call me crazy, but I want R. to see me drinking a glass of wine sometimes (whether it’s with dinner or with another mom) and learn that that works when there is moderation and responsibility.

    And HBM, dont’ get me started on the Bratz Dolls!

    just me February 2, 2007 at 5:47 pm

    yo.

    i grew up knowing that 5:30 was cocktail time, and frequently was told “no, don’t drink that cranberry juice. It’s mommy’s. It’s got alchohol in it.”

    and i’m fine.
    …i mean…relatively.

    Anonymous June 3, 2007 at 1:28 am

    Fellow Blogspot blogger, Found a cool new tool for our blogs… http://www.widgetmate.com It helps get latest news for our keywords directly on to our blog.

    Anonymous July 23, 2007 at 9:53 pm

    I’m horrified that the majority of folks think it’s okay to get f&^%ed up in front of the kids….a glass is still alcohol, still a substance, still mind numbing. To do that in front of your kids when they depend on you if god forbid there was crisis, and rationalize it because Mommy (or Daddy) wants to get lit, it’s pathetic.

    We all judge, get over it. But don’t get hammered in front of the kids. They deserve better.

    Comments on this entry are closed.

    Previous post:

    Next post: