From May 30-June 3, the 7th World Meetings of Families will be held in Milan. At a symposium this week to prepare for the meeting, entitled “Such a Family for Such a Society,” Bishop Enrico Dal Covlo drew attention to the role of the media in shaping the family:
“By way of a concrete example, what is the image of woman that emerges from the media today? The image of an ‘aggressive’ woman, who desperately pursues her personal fulfillment, at the cost of drastically reducing her presence and irreplaceable role in the family,” lamented the rector. “I am convinced that the conversion of our society, must pass through the conversion of women: It is necessary and urgent that women abandon this pernicious image of themselves, furnished and fueled by much of the media.”
I am not sure which particular portrayals of women the Bishop had in mind, but I hope we was not just referring to the fact that more and more women in movies and on television are portrayed as career-women, and successful ones at that, rather than domestic-goddesses and stay-at-home moms. Nor am I sure that the Bishop is aware that this “domestic-goddess” image of women sacrificing everything to take care of her family can be just as pernicious as the “aggressive” woman pursuing her personal fulfillment at all costs. The Bishop is surely right to highlight how the media shapes our societal views of women and the family, but I look around and see a variety of examples that show women in partnerships with their husbands as they try and help their family flourish without sacrificing their personal and professional ambitions.
My husband and I watch the show Up All Night, for example, which depicts a family where the woman, Reagan, is a high-powered producer of an Oprah-like talk show, while her husband Chris stays at home raising their baby daughter Amy after leaving a successful and lucrative job as an attorney. Reagan is by no means depicted as an “aggressive” career woman willing to sacrifice anything for the sake of her work. Her daughter Amy is often on the set of the show while Reagan (and the rest of the staff) keep an eye on her, and Reagan is constantly shown trying to balance her tendency to be a “helicopter mom” with the demands of her job. Her husband’s active involvement in raising Amy is what makes both possible. In a recent episode, Chris meets up with some old work buddies and begins to wonder if he should go back to work. He ends up deciding that while he loved his job and was good at it, he also loves being at home with his daughter during these formative years, and he’s even more successful as a dad. “This is what I do now,” he tells Reagan. It’s a beautiful alternative depiction of family life where marriage and parenting are both depicted as “partnerships.” Emily Spivey created the show after giving birth to a baby boy and having to balance also her desire to be a good mother with the demands of working at Saturday Night Live.
In the series Parenthood, Julia Braverman-Graham is a lawyer at a powerful corporate firm while her husband Joel also stays at home with their 7-year old daughter Sydney. Julia is depicted as incredibly committed to family, both immediate and extended, while also balancing the demands of her career. Once again, the “aggressive” career woman referenced in the Bishop’s statements is absent. Instead, we see a young couple willing to try alternative family roles in order to make both family and career work.
A recent episode of Parenthood (“Missing”) followed the decision of another woman, Kristina, to go back to work soon after the birth of her third daughter. Her job working on a political campaign is also demanding, and the whole family has to adjust to having two working parents. As she is preparing to leave her daughter with her sister-in-law before she heads off to her first day, she tries to express how she feels about the moment: “I do feel a little guilty,” she sighs. “Actually, I’m lying. I feel great. I got dressed up and I feel great.” Kristina thrives at work but unfortunately, her guilt builds after her son Max, who has Asperger Syndrome, disappears for the day. That night, she tries to come to terms with how she can keep her family together while she works. “We’re partners,” her husband tells her. “We just have to do better. We have to communicate better.”
Finally, Tina Fey’s relatively recent memoir Bossypants takes head-on the question of women in the workplace, refusing to accept either extreme of the “aggressive career woman” or the “stay-at-home mom.” She writes, “The moment most emblematic of how things have changed for women in America was nine-months-pregnant Amy Poehler rapping as Sarah Palin and tearing the roof off the place.” She also talks poignantly about the birth of her daughter Alice during the first season of 30 Rock:
After each fourteen-hour acting class was over, I would meet up with five or six writers at my apartment to catch up on what they had written during the day. During those early days we’d order food and work until one or two in the morning. My husband, Jeff, sat in what was meant to be a pantry and wrote music to score the show. We kept a video baby monitor next to the computer screen, and I could watch my daughter sleeping while we worked. I would excuse myself occasionally to change a diaper in the night. Usually for the baby. These will definitely be my happiest memories of this time, because everything I cared about was within ten feet of me.
This is not to say that women do not still struggle to balance personal ambitions with family life. But it is reassuring to see popular media slowly presenting alternative paradigms for womanhood which combine the possibility of a successful career and social life with a functioning and flourishing family. What is also important about all of these examples is the role of the husband who is never depicted as the hapless buffoon, unable to change a diaper or cook a meal, but usually as wildly successful professionally and socially. This image of men as utterly helpless in domestic affairs (along with the Don Draper-type man who is utterly absent from the domestic sphere) is just as hurtful to women as either of the extremes of womanhood presented above.
It is good that the Pontifical Council for the Family is attending to the portrayal of the family, and especially woman, in popular media and there is still a lot of work left to be done in this area. But part of social reform entails celebrating success, and I am heartened by how many positive signs I see for women in popular media today. I hope the members of the Pontifical Council can celebrate with me.
Beth,
Thank you for this post. First, you offer excellent examples from media (and now I want to check out Up All Night). There are so many aspects of the brief quote which are disheartening – in addition to those you mention – I find it particularly problematic to set up a paradigm where personal fulfillment and a woman’s role in the family appear necessarily at odds. If this were to be the case, that raises some quite serious questions about women’s full human dignity. It would be an interesting comparison to ask if the portrayal of women (as conceived by the head of the Council) or the portrayal of men in the popular media is more problematic from the perspective of strengthening families. In these examples you mention, there is not only a positive view of women but also a different (and I would say positive) view of men.
Thanks for this post, Beth. You point out some great examples here, and I think these are media moments well worth celebrating. I have to say that when I first read the quote, I thought much more about shows like Sex in the City, that portray women (and, actually, when they do portray men, mostly men as well) as not only seeking “self-fulfillment,” but in fact seeking self-fulfillment in pretty shallow, instant-gratification sorts of ways (from casual sex to Jimmy Choos). You could even consider the deeper version of that portrayed in “Eat, Pray, Love.” There is a sense, I think, that happiness/fulfillment justifies anything, including even divorce at the extreme. Frankly, I know a number of stories (some from the media, some from friends-once-removed) of exactly that sort of seeking of fulfillment leading to the break-up of a marriage. Of course, this is rooted in a larger (and not gender-specific) narrative about marriage and family being one more component of life where one should invest oneself exactly as long as one is getting one’s own needs met, and move on to something better if and when that ceases to be the case. I think everything that complicates that impression is a great thing! Thanks again for this post.
A timely, post, Beth, as I was just struck by this NPR story yesterday, entitled “Brazil’s Falling Birth Rate: A New Way of Thinking” (http://www.npr.org/2012/01/15/145133220/brazils-falling-birth-rate-a-new-way-of-thinking). The gist of the story is that demographers attribute Brazil’s falling birth rate (a drop from six kids to two over 50 years) in part to media portrayals of women and family, especially on soap operas where there are glamorous, small families. One 31-year old married woman is quoted as saying, “I’m planning to have kids when I have a bigger career, when I raise more money, and maybe when I have my life in another step.”
I know a number of “successful” families (if we want to call them that) with a number of models of family life: stay at home mom, stay at home dad, two parents working, part-time working mom with full-time working husband, etc. But I think no matter what the model is, it’s important to recognize that life with kids entails stress and sacrifice. Jana mentioned in a post awhile back about how the Cosby household seemed so calm. Well, real family life (especially once there are more than two kids) is hard work, and it entails a lot of sacrifice (regardless of who is working). I don’t watch t.v. (I don’t have time, as a full-time, stay at home mom of three who is also writing a dissertation) so I can’t really speak as to the portrayal of career women on t.v. But I can say that there is no “balance” when there are conflicting interests of work and kids; it’s more like continually failing in one arena or the other.
Sacrifice can be a good thing, and women (and men) have to make sacrifices for their family as well as for their careers. The larger question I always have (especially as I explore my own future) is whether those decisions are being made with an eye to “the greater glory of God,” as the Jesuits would say.
Thanks to all for their comments. At a couple days past my due date, I am anxiously awaiting my first child. I am also teaching full time, at a school which I am delighted to say full supports me in the sacrifices I will have to make for family and the fulfillment of my own personal and professional ambitions. I am also lucky enough to have a husband who is willing to teach part time for the next few years (at different times than me) as we start and grow our family. Since my husband will be spending more time overall with the kids, at least during the school year, I have been heartened by media portrayals of men doing what he is doing, and finding fulfillment in the process. But as Dana points out, there is still a lot more work to be done.
I think a big part of the problem is the assumption, especially for women, that one has to put their life on hold when they have children. Women who want to have a career then get the impression that they need to get their career in order and achieve a certain level of success before they “settle down” and start sacrificing. This article from the Atlantic Monthly a few months ago discusses the experiences of these women who decide to wait for family, with varying degrees of success:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/
Young career women are being encouraged to freeze their eggs on the chance that they either marry too late, or never find Mr. Right and still want to have a child (or two).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/18/eggs-frozen-young-women
Undoubtedly, marriage and children require great sacrifice. Careers require sacrifice. But for those who are called to marriage and parenthood and to a career should not have to pit these two spheres of life against each other. Rather, we should think of integral flourishing rather than personal fulfillment as that state of being which involves the whole person acting in all the spheres of life which God calls them to. We need to start offering young women the possibility that their education and their careers are compatible with their desires for family. Men have been balancing both for ages. We need the social structural support now for women to do the same.
We should also note that this conversation is really about a middle- to upper-middle class problem. Many women today who are balancing two or three part-time jobs to support their families are dealing with a very different problem than I am talking about. We need social support for these women too, but of a different kind.
I would post some tremendously insightful comment, but… gotta pack lunches, finalize syallabi, and figure out back-up care plans for the kid who’s sick today. 🙂