Work Wednesday
I've never been the tennis type - a deficit dictated by my unbelievable lack of hand-eye coordination and several unbelieving tennis instructors. So, I have to admit that, until a few weeks ago, I had no idea who Kim Clijsters was. Then, I started seeing lots of articles about her return to tennis competition, at age 26, following the birth of her daughter, Jada, 18 months ago.
By the time Clijsters won the U.S. Open on Sunday, I was a fan. (I still didn't actually watch the matches, though.) And so, apparently, were a lot of of my favorite working mom writers and bloggers. See, for example, Working Moms Against Guilt here, The Motherlode (from The New York Times) here, and About.com's Working Moms here. Their main sentiment - "Kim, you rock!"
I'm certain that Kim does, in fact, rock. It must have taken a lot to pull off a top career accomplishment with a toddler in tow. I'm less positive, though, about all of the hype about her motherhood status.
The headlines themselves - the Washington Post's "Mother of All Comebacks" and dozens of similar, trying-to-be-clever plays on "mother", "mommy", and "mom" (e.g, "mom-entous") - signaled the media's focus on "mommy Kim." While I think it's terrific for girls and women all over the world to see that some women (sadly, not me) can be mothers and high-performing athletes,there's a part of me that thinks Clijsters' motherhood status should be irrelevant. After all, there have been very few articles (with one notable exception) focusing on career implications of fatherhood for "daddy Roger" - the No. 1-ranked men's tennis player, Roger Federer, who became the father of identical twin girls in July. (Of course, Federer didn't actually give birth. His wife did.) Still, the fact that Clijsters is the first mother to win the tournament in 30 years, suggests that titled tennis moms are not the norm.
To some degree, my dueling feelings about the media's focus on Clijsters' "mommyhoood" reflect the ambivalence many women feel about their dual identities as mothers and professionals. There's the reality of motherhood, and the fact that it changes the priorities and aspirations of many women including women who enjoy working. But there's also the desire to be viewed and treated based on performance and commitment, and not on preconceived ideas of the impact of motherhood on career. While some working moms are entirely comfortable with integrating their status as "mothers" into their work lives (and lucky enough to have supportive employers and colleagues), others recoil at being typecast as "mommies" in their professional lives. Especially when there's a price in terms of pay or promotions - the so-called "mommy penalty."
These are tough issues for many working mothers and ones that aren't easily reconciled or resolved by Clijsters' big win. (See this interesting blog post on Yahoo's Shine: "Kim Clijsters ups the ante on new motherhood. New mothers everywhere sigh." Still, I'm inspired by Clijsters' success and her points over penalties approach to her work and life.
* * *
As a postscript, despite my ambivalence about all the mommy-related coverage of Clijsters, I've (obviously) been reading it. Here's a very interesting excerpt from an article about Clijsters' work-family balance from Monday's U.K. TimesOnline. Clijsters addressed "mommy guilt" head on:
At first, when I was leaving to go and train, I'd see her [Jada] at the window crying and I'd have to rush back in and give her a big hug. I don't know if that was the right thing to do. Now, I say to her, ‘Mummy's going off to practise' and she says, ‘Bye-bye'. Because she knows I'm coming home, everything is fine.
Now, we might not all be going off every morning to win a Grand Slam tournament, but I think there's some takeaway here for the rest of us from Clijster's levelheaded, "everything is fine," approach.
What a thoughtful, thought-provoking piece. (Even if your perspective differs a bit from mine.) I think a lot of the tension you describe can be traced back to the difference between the world we envision (where gender is irrelevant) and the world we inhabit (where motherhood carries a penalty and the physicality of pregnancy and childbirth can derail an athlete's career).
Posted by: Katherine | Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 04:33 PM
The one who spoke in English, Danish and Polish is the runner up, Caroline Wozniacki. Kim only spoke in English. She does speak Dutch and French too, though
Posted by: ice | Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 07:39 PM
Katherine,
Thanks for your comment and for articulating the source of the tension. In some ways, I guess, it goes back to the different strands of feminism in the US, and the way that one (of the many) focuses on the differences between women and men (a la the argument that if women were in charge, we wouldn't have war, poverty, etc.) and the other is more concerned with creating equal opportunities for women rather than stressing gender differences. An oversimplification of course, but one that is relevant.
Ice,
Thanks for catching my error. In my enthusiasm for all things Clijsters, I misread the underlying article and attributed the multiple languages to Clijsters. (I think she speaks Flemish, too.) How gracious of Wozniacki!
Posted by: Stacy | Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 09:10 PM
Interesting post. As someone who does religiously follow tennis, I thought I'd offer my two cents. You wrote that you're "less positive, though, about all of the hype about her motherhood status," and you highlighted a noticeable absence of referencing Roger Federer's status as a father. To clarify, tennis commentators have and continue to comment on Roger Federer as a parent. They even joke that his overachievements on court have translated over to reproduction; the guy couldn't just have one baby and had two! After the birth of his twin daughters, many speculated if his performance on court would diminish due to the responsibilities of parenthood. Also, Roger's daughters are only about 2 months old, so there are no Kodak moments of them running around on court.
Yes, the media has had a field day with the "mom" puns when talking about Kim Clijsters, but I don't mind the constant highlighting. It's true that Roger is a great champion, but parenthood has not had the same biological implications on him as it does on women. Furthermore, I can only think of one other woman in the top 100 who is a mother. The fact that Kim did not compete for 2.5 years, had a baby, is a good mother, and came back to win the US Open in her 3rd tournament back is amazing!
Posted by: Jane | Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 04:13 PM
Jane,
Thanks for giving more context about RF than I previously had. Obviously, my quick Internet searches based on my curiousity about Clijsters didn't tell the whole picture. Still, I continue to be troubled by the whole emphasis on "mommyhood" although I in no way critical of Clijsters. Like you, I think it's amazing that she was able to win the Open with an 18-month old (particularly given the toll that pregnancy and childbirth take on our bodies) and do it with grace, finesse, and a sense of perspective about what really matters. Thanks for this comment.
Posted by: Stacy | Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 07:55 PM