Wendy Kaminer's piece on Jane Swift ("Mama's Delicate Condition," TAP, April23, 2001) has stirred up quite a fuss, and it is easy to see why. The underlyingassumptions of her argument are as calculated to shock as one of those tabloid TVshows on "animals that kill" or alien invasion. Kaminer argues, essentially, thatsince "some" women "occasionally get pregnant," they should time these anomaliesso as never to interfere with demanding jobs, because childbirth and itsaftermath may render a woman unfit for high office. Say that again? And why issomeone saying it again?
For starters, pregnancy is not an "occasional" occurrence. Roughly 85 percentof working women are likely to become pregnant at some point during their career.And the suggestion that they time these blessed events with the precision of amoon landing, so that they never interfere with a sudden promotion, may be goodadvice but is a counsel of perfection. It is equivalent to telling a spouse to"drive carefully, dear." In real life, they never listen, and accidents dohappen.
And what about the notion that motherhood may make Swift and other high-rankingwomen temporarily incompetent because of all those raging hormones, maternalurges, and new priorities? Well, I've been there, and I don't remember that mybrain cells ceased functioning or that my reason was impaired during those firstmonths of mothering. It would have been strange indeed had this been the case.Our early female ancestors would never have been able to ensure their infants'survival if they hadn't had their wits about them, in conditions that were evenmore challenging than those in the statehouse.
There is a degree of confusion in Kaminer's thinking here. She can't seem todecide whether the governor's job really is all that difficult. At one point, sheconcedes that the office "doesn't seem terribly demanding." But if this is true,and if numerous male governors have not had to operate on all cylinders, then whyraise the question of fitness at all? Can't Swift be as mediocre as the next man?One detects a certain judgmental pique, aimed at a female who is not living herlife in a manner that Wendy Kaminer approves of or would choose for herself.
I am glad, however, that Kaminer had the nerve to make the controversial pointthat childbirth disproportionately affects women's bodies and emotions. Newmothers do experience powerful hormonal changes. They do fall in love, to adegree many describe as "besotted." And for many, including myself, this newrelationship often does take precedence over all other preoccupations. Men, byand large, just don't seem to be affected in the same way. Acknowledging thisreality may help us understand why the "childbirth as appendectomy" model ofmaternity leave--have the baby and quickly get back to business as usual--doesn'twork for large numbers of mothers. Many want much more time with their newbornsthan their jobs allow. This forces them either to quit paid work altogether or torush back to the office too soon, with tears in their eyes and a breast pumpclutched in their hands. As far as I'm concerned, that is unnatural, if notbarbaric, and American women are almost the only ones in the developed world whohave to make such a cruel choice.
But Kaminer fails to note that once the symbiotic love affair between mother andinfant has settled down, a maternal sensibility can be as much a qualification asa detriment to leadership. A female governor with young children may be ideallyequipped to grasp what other mothers go through and what they need to make theirjob of nurturing more successful. She might use her empathy and experience topush for parent education, or paid parental leaves, or health coverage, or aquality preschool education for all children in her state.
Having three small children won't disqualify Jane Swift from providing that kindof leadership. And I plan to judge her, just as I would judge any man, on whethershe delivers on such issues--not on whether she delivers her babies--while inoffice.
--Ann Crittenden
Author, The Price of Motherhood
Delicate Logic
Wendy Kaminer's recent column attacking Lieutenant Governor JaneSwift's ability to govern Massachusetts belongs in The American Spectator,not The American Prospect. Kaminer condemns Swift's audacity (to be bothpregnant and working simultaneously), arguing that women should better plan theirreproductive choices so as not to disrupt their work lives. Couching her argumentin feminist terms ("feminism is supposed to be about women making choices, afterall"), Kaminer sounds more like the traditionalist Dr. Laura, ordering women toprioritize and choose between work and family.
"Having it all," Kaminer reasons, "always seemed like a childish fantasy tome." But that "childish fantasy" describes the daily struggle to balance work andfamily shared by most Americans, a great percentage of whom depend on twobreadwinners and cannot afford the luxurious choice to dispense with one income.In the real world, feminism is not "about women making [or being forced to make]choices"--it is about having choices. A more thoughtful column stimulated bySwift's situation would deplore the lack of social policy supports to help women(and men) balance work and family, not reprimand individuals for the either/or"choices" they are coerced into making.
Kaminer deems Swift unfit to serve in public office because of her recuperationafter birthing twins. She even invokes that prefeminist bogey, raging hormones.But who else would flunk the Kaminer fitness test? Franklin D. Roosevelt presidedfrom a wheelchair and sometimes suffered exhaustion. John F. Kennedy tooksteroids (a hormone!) for Addison's disease. Dwight Eisenhower continued to serveas president after two heart attacks. Even Vice President Dick Cheney may staggerthrough his term. How do we measure a pregnancy against chronic heart disease?
Kaminer buys into a prefeminist double standard. She revives "having it all" as auniquely female fantasy--women need to choose family or work, but men don't. Thetruth is, no one can have it all; everyone has to make compromises. Precisely thereason men got away with having it all was because they didn't do it all:Their wives stayed at home to raise the kids and take care of the domesticduties, as Swift's husband will. It's the absence of family-support policies thatcompel someone--Swift or her husband--to make sacrifices and have limitedchoices. This is a root problem that Kaminer's superficial feminism ignores.
We no longer tell people with disabilities that they are "unfit" to work becausethey cannot enter the building ("Sorry, we haven't constructed a ramp to thecorner office yet--I guess you can't take that promotion. Not our problem."); wethink of creative solutions like elevators, fully accessible bathrooms, andspecial chairs. Likewise, we can't keep telling women to give up careers becauseour employers and elected officials (like Swift!) have not taken theresponsibility to find equitable practical solutions for such "disabilities" aspregnancy. If Jane Swift wants to take a few minutes to breastfeed her newchildren while in office, why not? Our president, after all, does his exerciseworkouts during his breaks.
It took some doing to turn a rather feeble and conservative public officialinto an object of feminist sympathy, but Kaminer perversely managed it. Afterfour years of trying to conceive with her husband, Jane Swift becamepregnant with her first child in 1998 when she was running for lieutenantgovernor. Amid a barrage of press coverage about her publicly pregnant role,including interviews with The Washington Post and 20/20, a fed-upSwift hoped that "someday people will transcend my uterus." If Swift wereserious, she would be a crusader for policies to bring about that day. And ifKaminer were serious, she might fault Swift not for having children but forfailing to lead on work-family policies for working women who find themselvespregnant--the very policies that Swift herself deserves.
--Alyssa Rayman-Read
Writing Fellow, The American Prospect
Dad to the Rescue
Wendy Kaminer's recent denunciation of Lieutenant Governor JaneSwift for electing to stay in office while bearing twins doesn't make sense.Kaminer argues that exhaustion, hormone swings, and recuperation from childbirthwill compromise Swift's ability to perform her job; she further suggests thatthis compromise does not perturb Swift's conscience because Swift does not takeher job seriously.
But mothers have traditionally met great challenges, despite mood swings andexhaustion: They have taken on the complex, demanding responsibility ofsimultaneously raising an infant and managing a household. Why assume that Swiftcan't carry big responsibilities or make important decisions? It's also a hugestretch to argue that Swift has low standards or takes her job lightly simplybecause she might cut back at work or not function at her highest level the firstfew months after childbirth.
If political leadership is about taking responsibility, breaking from encrusted,harmful conventions, and modeling exemplary conduct, then Kaminer is right thatSwift is not a political leader in this case. But Swift's husband is--and Kaminertrivializes this crucial point.
We should not make a big fuss about Swift's husband or give him a trophy. (Andhe has had the decency not to ask for one.) After all, he is doing only whatwomen have typically done for centuries. But it is at least worth noticing thathe is putting his spouse's career before his own and becoming the primarycaretaker of his children. Only about 20 percent of men care for their childrenwhile their partner is working--a percentage that reflects a modest increase overthe past 20 years. Our public leaders need to be saying that Swift's husbandmerits admiration and they need to put the issue of Swift's decision to rest.
--Richard Weissbourd
Harvard Graduate School of Education and JFK School
Wendy Kaminer Responds:
I'm flattered that the editors at the Prospect assigned three people thetask of attacking my column on Jane Swift, and I'm grateful to them for makingone of my points: Anyone who merely raises questions about the feasibility ofassuming high office and giving birth more or less simultaneously is likely to bedismissed as a sexist or assailed as a right-wing scold.
The extreme sensitivity of this subject is reflected in the hyperbole of thesecomments. I did not denounce or condemn Swift for getting pregnant and agreeingto assume the governor's office. I did not argue that women should plan theirreproductive lives around their careers (I only pointed out that they can; afterall, many do). I did not pronounce Swift unfit for office. I said that questionsabout her fitness were legitimate. Personally, I have no strong opinion, orprediction, about how childbirth will affect her initial performance as governor.I don't approve or disapprove of her choices (although, as a citizen ofMassachusetts, I'll be affected by them). My intent was simply to open adiscussion that I sensed the press was avoiding, and to air concerns that I'veheard in private conversations with other professional women and mothers.
I stand by my article. I refer readers interested in my response to criticismsof it here (and elsewhere) to my dialogue with Lindsay Sobel on theProspect's Web site, www.prospect.org. And I remind people who thinkthere is one correct feminist response to Jane Swift's situation that feministshave been arguing about how to balance work and family life for more than 100years. I don't plan to stop now.
