Babywearing for Women . . . and Baby Finn
Last weekend I spoke to Biola University on our recent book Coffee Shop Conversations and then in the evening on the “Myths of Gender.” For this latter talk, Dale and I shared the stage and preached about how men and women need one another.
This idea has been unpopular for hundreds (maybe even thousands) of years. That men need women isn’t very popular in the parenting philosophy that says little boys can be ruined by their mothers. Don’t want to be “overclose” right? Just think about it this way, is it positive or negative to call a girl “Daddy’s Little Girl”?
Okay, now what if you call a boy “Momma’s Boy”?
I particularly enjoyed our Question and Answer time with the students. Such great questions that have helped me think more.
One moment in the talk we were discussing the different ways men and women approach the world given the simple difference of their bodies. Due to my body’s shape, capabilities, size, strength I will walk down the street, shop, smile and speak differently than a man.
I told the audience that because we have a two month old baby my mind is constantly considering when I will be needed to nurse Finn, even while I’m juggling the next point in my talk and the powerpoint.
The men looked at Dale with curiosity when I said, “Dale isn’t thinking about any of that!”
“Nope!” he responded with a smile. The audience burst into laughter.
“But that is the challenge of being a woman,” I said, after they all quieted. “I have to press into God to ask him to show me the privilege and beauty of having a body that must be interrupted in a speaking event to feed my son.”
The women stared at me intently. Their eyes made me want to explore this privilege here with you.
I carried Finn onstage in my *Lille Baby when I spoke alongside Dale. The audience numbered about 2000, which is enough to stream adrenalin through my body.
But I wanted to “wear” Finn for several reasons.
1- I believe our talks benefit from me at Dale’s side and I do not want to give up on this benefit for our non-profit, but most significantly for our audiences, simply because we have a baby.
2- The absence of children from most places of business, religion, politics feels unnatural and in the end harmful to me. Have you noticed that we put children away? We do not see Senators or CEOs or models or professors with their baby WHILE WORKING, at least not very often. I’m reminded of a wonderful woman, Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazier Bhutto, who raised three children as she shepherded her country. From Claudia Preifus’ article in the New York Times, May 13, 1994,
“In all the world there cannot be another plane quite like the official jet of Bhutto. The front section is a kind of office-cum-nursery, jammed with toys, briefcases, newspapers, nannies and Bhutto’s children, Bilawal, 5, Bakhtawar, 4, and Asifa, 1. In the main cabin, political advisors, security commandos and generals are keeping an eye on the Prime Minister they cautiously support.
“Hello gentlemen . . . Hello, babies,” Bhutto calls as she enters the plane. It is both jarring and interesting to see soldiers saluting a woman with children on her lap.”
Children were permitted alongside this woman even as she accessed places of power.
3- Finn is at an age where he needs me, for food, for hydration, for warmth, for shelter, for affection. He also needs his father for all of these (except the food/hydration). To hold my son on my body while I speak indicates, I hope, my w
illingness to meet his needs even while others may not understand. In planning to babywear Finn, the chapel coordinator (a female student) was surprised but enthusiastic. “I don’t think we’ve ever had a speaker carry a baby on stage,” she said. That increased my nervousness, but made me all the more determined.
4- Even if it is easier to have someone watch Finn, so I can focus on my work, the task of inviting Finn’s distraction while attempting to speak is an example Dale and I could not pass up. We want the women and men in the audience (many future mothers and fathers) to consider the example of inviting a child into your work, into the public sphere. Because if more women were permitted, even encouraged to invite their children to work, the inequalities between men and women would begin to seriously evaporate. It is not marriage that hinders women from producing and enjoying careers, it is the insistence that children cannot be a part of real work, real life, real business. That is a myth I would like to challenge, in the few years and few opportunities I’m given. Babies are part of real life, they are as real as our own existence, and, as my wise cousin once said in response to my fears that Finn would wake up and interrupt,
“You should be fine, and if he does wake up and make noise, that is just part of real life! So you are really being real about your life as a mom.”
Bravo!
5- I do not see women and children side-lined in God’s program in Scripture. Instead, I see God excited about inviting children near him, even when the all-business agenda of his followers begged to differ. As Jesus said, “Permit the little children to come to me.” I find it strange that the founder of Christianity was so pro- children (even with their interruptions) but his followers are intent on assigning children to the nursery during our serious Sunday morning programmes.
In a wonderful new book celebrating Men and Women’s difference, Alice von Hildebrand writes,
“Not only are man and woman made for each other, not only do their complement each other, but, above all, their differences (which are not limited to the biological sphere) enable them to be partners with God Himself in creating new human persons” (p. 4 Man and Woman: a Divine Invention).
This mutual interdependence is not something easy to explain or to live. In a conversation with a Christian feminist last week, she suggested that true interdependence, making room for me to depend on you, while you make room to depend on me, cannot happen unless we are first independent.
I’m curious about what you think.
Why do men and women find it so difficult to depend on each other?
Must we first learn independence to interdepend?
*For a wonderful site on all the benefits and styles of baby-wearing, as well as the many options of baby-wearing carriers see my cousin’s site: www.frogmama.com
May 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 am
Wonderful article!!
Just wanted to comment on the “Daddy’s Little Girl”/”Momma’s Boy” question. I was a Daddy’s girl and my brother a Momma’s Boy. And that is not necessarily healthy. See, I was enmeshed with my dad.
So for me, Daddy’s Girl and Momma’s Boy make me really cringe because I became the surrogate spouse for my dad and occasionally my mom. I was responsible for his happiness, I was his shoulder to cry on, I was being made into his image of a perfect woman.
If it were happening between two adults, it would be called an “emotional/non-sexual affair.” And because it had the same basis as an affair (though a parent/child one), had he ever wanted to sexually abuse me, I would have considered it a privilege, told no one, and bought lingerie for the event.
This largely came about because my parents’ marriage is terrible but both are too proud/arrogant/playing chicken to divorce. It is also one of those “generational cycles.”
So yes, being “overly close” is definitely a real concern, and something to watch out for.
1. Why do men and women find it so difficult to depend on each other?
Partially pain, partially culture. We have this idea of the lone ranger/cowboy which is EXTREMELY damaging to men. And women are still figuring out our identities after feminism, while men are still told to live up to being “heads of house.”
Also, marriage and family have caused people a lot of pain, so why get close if you’ll just get hurt?
2. Must we first learn independence to interdepend?
Of course, if we never learned independence then we would all just be codependent enablers who did whatever we’re told by any authority figure. This is a big problem in patriarchal/super-conservative “Christian” and FLDS circles. Even though the “children” may be 28, married with several children, they are still to follow whichever leader’s “umbrella of authority” they are under.
My counselor told me that in order to say a healthy yes, one must first learn to say a strong no. Hence the “terrible two’s” are about a child finding out what they like/want, and how much control they have over their lives.
Would it not be healthier for a boy to be a Momma’s Boy AND Daddy’s Boy? Isn’t that what good Co-parenting about? Shouldn’t a boy be just as much dad’s as he is mom’s? Likewise with girls?
P.S. The best books on the subject are:
The Emotional Incest Syndrome: What to do When a Parent’s Love Rules Your Life
by Dr. Patricia Love
Silently Seduced: When Parents make Children their Children their Partners
by Kenneth M. Adams
May 22nd, 2010 at 7:41 am
Seriously, I think this is one of the coolest posts I’ve ever read. I love how you incorporate Baby Finn into your speaking life. It makes a lot of sense.
May 22nd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Love this post Jonalyn! I think it is great to BE who you are! I taught part time after our son Eldan was born. He would come to school and play with Daddy (in one of his speech lab classes) until Daddy had his next class and then Andrew would bring him to me in my class and I’d finish the class with Eldan! The kids loved it, and I loved how flexible the school was. They allowed us to BE who we were (as far as that went anyway) and I didn’t have to constantly pass Eldan off to someone else. I have found it more challenging with two (especially with Evelyn being sooo busy) but I love being able to tutor and still do what I love! Will be mulling over the interdependence topic….
May 23rd, 2010 at 8:32 am
Not My Name Nichole,
I’m glad you raised the point that both titles “Momma’s Boy” and “Daddy’s Little Girl” could be names exposing a deeper emotionally unhealthy connection.
I really appreciate you sharing your story. Thank you.
Recently, I’ve been studying the situation you described with your father. I’ve heard it called “emotional incest”, (I also highly recommend The Emotional Incest Syndrome by Patricia Love) and yes it is horrible, robs children of their childhood as they attempt to play the adult friend/emotional support role for their parent.
I admire your courage in raising this problem, often undiagnosed and even smiled at as cute, as in “She’s so close to her father, how sweet!”
I wanted to make the point that culturally boys are not allowed to be respected and be momma’s boy, but girls are still respected while they’re daddy’s girl. Depending on what these terms means they could both be problems. When you hear “momma’s boy” what do we think of?
It seems like there is a cultural double standard for girls to be connected forever to their fathers while boys are not permitted to be forever connected to their mothers. Why is this?
I have a few ideas
If you want to discuss this further let me know!
I think you’re spot on with the observation that men are trained to be lone rangers. From a young age their encouraged to separate, to stuff emotions in order to prove they are a man. I’m reading a stellar book on this right now by Olga Silverstein called The Courage to Raise Good Men: You Don’t Have to Sever the Bond with your Son to Help Him Become a Man.
Isn’t it fascinating and sad that as men attempt to appear tough and self-sufficient, aka the authoritarian head of the house (aka 51% vote so all responsibility rests on their shoulders), they lose part of their humanity i.e. their emotional language and expression. As you said men (and often women) don’t want to get hurt so they remove themselves from intimacy and thereby get more hurt in their loneliness.
I don’t know if there is a worse hurt than loneliness and many American men experience this daily.
Love your comment about being a Momma’s Boy and a Daddy’s Boy, GREAT perspective.
Thank you!
May 23rd, 2010 at 8:36 am
Amy – thank you for being so FOR us… and for your enthusiasm!
Danielle – would love to hear your thoughts on the independence topic. Very much enjoyed hearing another model of leaning on each other for parenting.. thank you for sharing!
I want to invite all unmarried peeps to comment on the interdependence/independence question, too. This is something that concerns all of us as we learn to love.
May 23rd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Jonalyn,
I’d love to talk about it! I have some thoughts formulating.
BTW, I hope I did not come across as angry towards your article, I am still working on telling my story without blaming people not responsible for it. I didn’t mean to imply that you would have that relationship with Finn, just that being too close is possible. I refer to it as emotional/covert incest or enmeshment, depending on the situation. Sometimes the “incest” can provoke bad reactions. And yes, the “how sweet” reactions hurt the most.
Momma’s boy does make me think of the 30 yr. old living in a basement still acting like a 13 yr old
I’ll have to work on that.
I think men are/have been encouraged to separate from mothers for several reasons:
1. In previous centuries (I’m referring primarily to Europe, also), there were clear distinctions between “men’s work” and “women’s work.” So naturally, a boy would learn primarily from men.
2. Like you suggested in your post “Harsh Environments Hurt Men and Women,” boys were expected to face harsh environments, go to war at young ages, and generally be tough about things. Since women were seen as weak for not being able to do these things, why would anyone want their future soldiers to be under the influence of the weak?
3. It was also common for women to die in childbirth, so a husband might have trouble getting close to his wife (if they got close at all), a young boy observes that which reinforces the message to be removed from women.
4. Women were seen as childlike, not equal to men. So there would be an age at which the son was expected to surpass the woman in intelligence, rank, etc. Kind of how in Saudi Arabia a woman is under the guardianship of her son if her father, husband, and any brothers have died.
5. In modern times, the feminist movement shook thinks up quite a bit, but a man’s role did not really change. Manhood had traditionally been defined as “not female”, so once women were able to do the majority of what men could, there needed to be a redefining of manhood.
Unfortunately what happened was that manhood became more stringently defined so things that traditionally a male could do and/or was expected to do (dance, ride horses, be fluent in languages and philosophy, knowledge of agriculture, able to write poetry and music) were tossed out as female. That only left what had been a only a part of manhood, the warrior.
6. PTSD. Especially in the past 150 years. Men who fought in wars did not go back to normal. They could not, the treatments were not available. Silence was everything and feelings could not be talked about. Men were expected to deal with war. Those who could not were clearly not men. This also increased the separation from, and disdain for, women.
In a book I am hoping to read soon, “Soldier from the War Returning: The Greatest Generation’s Troubled Homecoming from World War II” by Thomas Childers is supposed to cover the reality of coming home.
http://www.amazon.com/Soldier-War-Returning-Generations-Homecoming/dp/0618773681
May 24th, 2010 at 11:18 am
NMNN,
I did not pick up accusation or anger in you.. no worries! I actually thought you explained and told your story beautifully–in a way that I hope will open other reader’s eyes to how a woman can confess the pain in her life with graciousness.
Yes, the different life-duties that faced men and women in “the olden days” often did a gulf between the sexes.
Your #3 is an interesting point… my husband in speaking about gender and listening to stories on the road has found some men actually avoid marriage all together today because they are afraid such a close association with a woman will taint their manhood.
There’s a prevalent folklore as foolish as wives’ tales–perhaps I ought to call them male tales– that finds too close of an association with women tainting. For some recent examples see my husband’s blog, Kristy Caver’s comment here: http://firstyeardad.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/a-walk-in-the-park/
The church follows suit when it embraces the mythology and definition of manhood in John Eldredge’s books. Man in essence is a warrior? This is more Jungian and Jewish or Christian.
I’m reading a fascinating book right now by Olga Silverstein and Beth Rashbaum called The Courage to Raise Good Men: Why You Don’t Have to Sever the Bond With Your Son to Help Him Become a Man . In it I’ve found some more support for you #4.
She says that the myths (often Jungian) of man as warrior, leader, lone-ranger were helpful in a society that required men leave their homes to war for their country/families/livelihood. However, in today’s society these myths of lone ranger manhood actually hinder men from accessing their (my addition: God-given) emotional, sensitive, social capacity. So the cult of masculinity is hindering men from becoming fully human and enjoying the other humans (read wife, children, extended family, friends) in their life. So tragic to me.
Another lovely quote in their from Adrienne Rich’s Of Women Born
“What do we fear? That our sons will accuse us of making them into misfits and outsiders? That they will suffer as we have suffered from patriarchal reprisals? Do we fear that they will somehow love their male status and privilege, even as we are seeking to abolish that inequality?”
Lots for me to ponder as I raise this infant boy to become a man.
5. great point. My husband often says, “Feminism didn’t create a crisis in masculinity, it merely revealed it.”
Great book recommendation, thanks for sharing.
Another one I JUST got that makes me interested in pursuing the psyche of manhood more: When a Man you Love Was Abused: A woman’s guide to helping him overcome childhood sexual molestation by Cecil Murphey.
I’m curious if you think there’s a connection between emotionally incestuous fathers and them being molested as children??
May 24th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
One more thought (making a delicious stew gave me more time to think
)
It appears that the Momma’s Boy is derogative only when we imagine that masculinity must include independence from parents.
We have a friend visiting and were discussing these things over the stew. He commented that he doesn’t feel like a man because he isn’t yet paying for his house and car and education…yet. He says he hates being dependent.
Want to know my rejoinder?
When are we ever independent?
I gave him the scenario of a quadriplegic who relies of his parents for all his medical care and transporation. Even if this man be virtuous and loving, even if he is 40 years old… would we then say he isn’t really a man???
What defines and makes a man… or woman anyway?
May 25th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Jonalyn,
I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a correlation between fathers who were molested while children and them having emotionally incestuous relationships with their kids.
Sexual abuse is incredible traumatic (massive understatement), and would be a major player in marriage. If the survivor was unable to relate in a healthy way to their spouse, that would set the stage to turn to the child to fulfill the role of the spouse. But without the sexual abuse, because that is KNOWN to be wrong. The grooming and inappropriate relationship on the other hand, is much harder to identify and stop, because it is soo easily disguised as “good parenting” and “specialness.”
I know my dad’s mom was emotionally incestuous with him. There have been little hints dropped here and there that some things might have crossed the line sexually. Sadly, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he was molested.
Hmm… When are we ever independent? That definitely has me thinking
May 27th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
“It is not marriage that hinders women from producing and enjoying careers, it is the insistence that children cannot be a part of real work, real life, real business.” Interesting…
I like the example you gave of the Prime minister. I would tend to believe in real life, for most prople with more ordinary jobs, this would be much more complicated. I do like your quote though I think it is interesting, I think many moms feel that their work is a way to be fulfilled apart from their family and children. A way that they can assert them selves to be an independant woman. I think the example of the Titus 2 woman probably had her children by her side helping her in many aspects of her business. We have some close friends who have an organic produce company. From an early age their children are helping in various aspects along side them. The children are learning valuable lessons they wouldn’t learn from being with a babysitter or a daycare, real life things. For me my issue with women working is just the shift that takes place many times between your husband and family being a priority and your work becoming first.
As far as the mommy’s boy… I think healthy attachment to mom and dad early on is key. We noticed a definate shift with our first son, I think it was around 2-3 year sold when he sudden;y became more interested in dad than mom. I tend to think in todays society with so many single moms out there, or families where there is no healthy attachment/realtionship with dad that the young boys have no way to “switch” over. So they continue on sometimes to unhealthy extremes….
Oh and to totally change the subject- The Mission of Motherhood by Sally Clarkson is what I am reading now, just starting it- I would be interested to see what you think.:)
From
your “continually-praying-for-wisdom-not-sure-I will-ever-get-there”:) cousin
May 28th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Bravo Jonalyn! Wonderful points here and I’m so glad you broke the ice at Biola by being the first to wear your baby on stage! I am so excited to see how you will carry on using your gifts with Finn alongside you both. I’m glad to see you representing talented, thoughtful women as mothers.
May 30th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Hi Jonalyn,
I share Lorene’s hesitation that the model of kids at work is not going to be the model for all or most women, but I do appreciate the challenge and the possibilities in this–one of many creative ways of re-envisioning our lives as families.
I must thank you for previously recommending The Mismeasure of a Woman by Carol Tavis. I struggled with conclusions/apparent attitude in some parts (feeling like by overstating the case, perhaps she was creating some harm for women who really do struggle, for instance, with severe PMS), but I really liked it. Also, it substantiated some speculative writing in one of my books. I wonder how it would bump up against the Hildebrand book, for Tavis seems a bit shy on ascribing difference.
Although it has already been said, I see our need for independence crucial in order to healthily interdepend and also to understand what we are bringing to the table.
Just this last week, I used the phrase momma’s boy in a positive sense, encouraging a woman that it is good that her son is in some ways content to be a momma’s boy while also being a teen. She seemed to hesitate a bit at the phrase until I completed the sentence and then smiled in recognition that I understood the dynamics, seemed relieved to embrace the phrase as a “good,” and began bubbling on comfortably. In my own family, it has been used negatively as a cause of concern for one of my nephews. I think there has been some reason for concern, as he was slow on the independence/socialization thing. But I also started to recognize that the family was pressing a mold and not seeing him fully as he really is–perhaps b/c of a touch of anxiety. As has been said, both momma’s boy and daddy’s girl can be unhealthy. I also think they can be very good or appropriate.
I am appreciating all of the input here from readers.
Deb
June 4th, 2010 at 10:00 am
NMN Nichole,
Great point that this “special” relationship is often mistaken for good parenting. I’ve seen that time and again.
Glad I can keep you thinking
Lorene,
So wonderful to have your voice back. Thanks for reading and commenting. That quote does represent a privileged minority… it is true.
I wonder what you’d think of this statement,
“We cannot find our independence or our worth from our work alone, be it child-rearing, our careers or our volunteering. We must find our independence in what God has sealed into us: female bodies, feminine souls. And these will not change, regardless of life stage or season, work, advantages or disadvantages in life.”
Perhaps the secular feminist falters when she endows her career with all the power to validate her existence. If so, then I’d say the Christian mother falters when she endows her mothering with all the power to validate her existence.
I think the work God gives us, to fill our days, is just that, a gift. It can be taken away. I can lose Soulation, I can lose Finn, but still remain significant, valuable, amazing to God.
I agree with you that we must guard ourselves from putting our work ahead of people in our family. I love how we both came to the conclusion that women who stay home with their children can still be emotionally absent if they choose (e.g. spending all day on facebook or email). Perhaps the challenge and burden so many working outside the home moms feel is that they want to be more present with their children. The ones I know who work outside the home (and do it to my mind well) are very intentional about being very present with their children when with them.
I will look up The Mission of Motherhood. So thankful for your perspective.
One question I’m wrestling with daily is how to integrate Finn into my work in a way that builds his soul and shows him I love him. If I can do this (with Dale) well, I think those I serve in my ministry will also benefit. For instance, I think the audience at Biola benefited from seeing Finn with us. I also think as Finn grows he will be able to enjoy our work on the road, as we’ll make field trips of our travels and integrate our work with his homeschooling. I like to think people who I help with Soulation who hear I have a baby to nurse or rock understand that I can’t type as long or talk as much. I hope that they benefit from knowing I’m loving my husband or my son well in this time.
From your growing cousin,
Jonalyn
Mandy,
Thank you for cheering for me/us! I have put you and Josh in our balcony section to remind me of the audience that roots for us.
June 7th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Jonalyn,
As I think about your and Dale’s talk, it just makes me smile. I really needed a speaker like you when I was in college. I am so glad the students were so present and interested. And, I am so on board with your conviction that until we can co-parent (and create appropriate legislation to support the practicals of that, like paternity leave), we just can’t get very far with gender equality. Thanks for the work that you do!
June 12th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Deb,
Glad you enjoyed Tavis’ book! I agree she does overstate at times. I think she and von Hildebrand would disagree on a lot!
I wonder if more women required that they have the freedom to baby wear if we’d see a change in the opportunities for women to work and carry their baby.
It made me grin to hear how you’re trying to redeem the “momma’s boy” term. Glad for you!
Kimberly,
Thank you for reading and commenting here. I want to see that paternity leave legislation or at least some more incentive for fathers to take time off to enjoy their children. It would be mighty biblical as God always directs his parenting commands to BOTH parents in Scripture!
July 7th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
An interesting article on how Olympians combine sports and motherhood can be found at Life Site News: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10022503.html
My favorite quote:
“Go ahead and have babies — and get better in sports,” said Russian anchor Olga Zaitseva, 31, in a word of advice to the French and German teams, who won silver and bronze respectively.
Zaitseva told AFP that having her son, Alexander, who was born in 2007, helped her become a better athlete. “My child is my greatest happiness and he is my best little gold medal,” she said. “It has made me calmer.”
While I haven’t won a gold medal, I do think Finn has made me calmer.
That is pretty amazing, to me.