The Midterms and the "New Momism": The Takeaway for Working Moms

Work Wednesday

I feel kind of hung over today. And not because I had too much fun last night. I didn't. Outcomes aside, I'm glad it's all over. (Well, almost. There are still votes to be counted in a number of races.)

Now that Election Day is past, I'm wondering if there's a takeaway for working moms from the midterms? After all, more women were on ballots than ever before, from the conservative Republican "Mama Grizzlies" to the Democratic pro-choice women supported by Emily's List.  Many of them were moms. Moms with jobs. Working moms.

To an unprecedented extent, female candidates from both parties in this electoral cycle sold themselves to voters by emphasizing their motherhood status. The most notorious example was Oklahoma Republican gubenatorial candidate Mary Fallin (now the Governor-elect), who asserted at a debate that her experience as a mother of six was a key credential that made her more qualified to serve as governor of Oklahoma than her unmarried, childless opponent. (N.B. Four of Fallin's six kids have been her stepchildren for just under a year.)

Personally, this political pitch doesn't resonate with me. Although having children and trying to balance work and family have made me use my time more wisely while I'm at at work, it's not my "mommy skills" that make me good at what I do.  Sure, I can bring order to my family members' conflicting schedules, win a negotiation with my preschooler, and organize my first grader's class Halloween party, but none of that makes me a better lawyer or qualifies me to serve in the Senate.  That doesn't mean, of course, that women can't leverage significant volunteer experiences into paying or political positions or that mothers can't draw on their own experiences in developing policy positions on issues that affect women and families. (One small example --  if I were making policy, I'd certainly come out differently than the IRS did in its determination that breastfeeding equipment doesn't qualify as a medical expense under a flexible savings account.) It just means that I don't view motherhood as the key credential for political office.)

Judith Warner had an interesting take on this phenomenon in The New York Times last weekend, writing about The New Momism. As Warner explained,

In an age when “the mommy brain” is now considered a greatly superior organ — uniquely suited for multitasking, specialty-schooled in the challenges of diplomacy and budgeting, grounded in the can-do here and now rather than in the hopelessly abstract or esoteric — being a mom (the “just” has been dropped) is now frequently spun as a prime career asset, particularly in the world of politics.

The reality, of course, doesn't match up with the spin. Warner recognized this, calling out the new "momism" for what it is, a clever political strategy "meant, in part, to domesticate those whose very real power or wealth or celebrity . . . might be a turnoff for men and women alike." Others have noted the sexism inherent in this electoral strategy.

I agree. To a large extent, the new "momism" is nothing more than really old ideas about women. Ideas that link a woman's worth to her womb. And idealize her domestic management skills. (It's the reincarnation of the nineteenth century's "cult of domesticity" (aka the "cult of true womanhood.") Frankly, the "new momism" is insulting to working moms who have worked hard to develop their job skills and careers. It's also particularly offensive to women who aren't mothers whether by circumstance or choice.

And the "new momism" hasn't translated into real gains - either in politics or the office.  As Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women & Politics Institute at American University, pointed out in Slate yesterday, women (mothers and non-mothers alike) are still only a small fraction of political office holders (or seekers). (And, despite some high profile victories, especially in governor's races, there is even a smaller fraction of women in Congress after yesterday.) Also, as I blogged about a few weeks ago, there is still a real penalty, in terms of pay and perception, for many mothers in the workforce.

The predictions for Election 2010 are now in the past.  But I'll make one prediction for the next go round. And that's this - while the "new momism" as electoral strategy probably isn't going away, it isn't going to be any better for working moms come 2012.

Image courtesy of Abeeeer on Flickr.com. 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Caroline Morton Huffman]

Whether or not one is a mother is irrelevant. Whether or not one is a parent should not be fodder for politics. My congressman, Brad Miller, came under fire in the last election cycle because he and his wife had never had children! Apparently, as his Republican opponent explained, this meant Rep. Miller lacked "family values." It was all appalling.

[Joanne Bamberger aka PunditMom]

Clever political strategy and effort to keep moms in a niche. What I've been saying for a long time.

[stacy]

A quick update on my post. Women, in fact, were net losers this year, "new momism" notwithstanding. See this update from Jennifer Lawless on Slate for a rundown of the numbers: http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/not-year-woman. But the original "mom in tennis shoes," Senator Patty Murray, won her Senate race tonight! See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/04/politics/main7023888.shtml