Femagination - The Feminist Imagination Blog

The Nature of War

Ellen Keim — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:30:45 +0000

Poater by Michaelsen Rolf (Norway)

After I wrote my last post about women impinging on men’s territory, it occurred to me that I had hit on the very reason why there’s a war between the sexes in the first place. Because what is war anyway but a conflict over territory? Even when the purported reason for the war is to protect some ideal or philosophy, it all boils down to a battle for territory.

Take the war in Iraq. Bush justified it as a fight for democracy, but in reality it was to protect our territory. Those who orchestrated the war wanted to make sure that no one (read terrorists) would ever be able to take over America. And, to be honest, it was also to protect our “territory” in the sense of our access to Middle Eastern oil.

Everyone has territory. It can be physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, philosophical, familial—you name it, we all have it. The reason why territory is so important to us is because what we “possess” makes up a great deal of our identities. Who would you be without your possessions, both material and immaterial? Without your home, your family, your religion, your ideas? And make no mistake, even with those things that are also possessed by others (like religion), we will still protect our version of it.

One of the things we possess is our roles. If anyone tries to take over our “God-given” roles, we become defensive, even aggressive. Thus the man feels threatened when his wife makes more than he does, because his special role is to be the provider. And his wife tends to shut him out of the things that define her role as a wife and mother: nurturing and consoling the children, decorating and maintaining the home.

That’s why it’s hard to let go of these roles even among egalitarian couples. The father might be all for his wife contributing to the family’s net worth, and yet resents it when she does it better than he does. The mother is all for sharing parenting and household tasks, but finds fault with everything her husband does.

It’s not so much that we want to prevent others from trespassing on our territory, it’s that we want to retain control over it. They can “visit” all they want; we just don’t want them to take over. You can see this dynamic when women become mothers. It’s especially hard when our children are infants, for instance, to relinquish control over their care. We want our husbands to help out, but we feel uncomfortable or even angry when they try to do too much.

By the time our children are older and we could really use help taking them to doctor appointments and attending their school events, not to mention disciplining them, the pattern is already set. We may chafe under the responsibilities of child-rearing, but by then we’ve bought into the idea that they’re our responsibilities.

And it’s not just men who make us feel threatened when they attempt to usurp our parenting role. Sometimes we feel even more threatened by other women: the nanny, our mothers, our exes’ second wives. One of the things that made me hate my children’s stepmother when they were little was when she had their hair cut short (really short) during a summer visit. I still can’t believe the gall of that woman! Who did she think she was—their mother?? (And of course, I blamed my ex, too, for allowing her to do it; he impinged on my territory.)

It seems to me, however, that it is men who feel the most threatened than women do by the opposite sex’s intrusion into their territories. Men have a thing about defending their territory. They also like expanding it.That could be what gets us into wars. Would the world be better off if more leaders were women? Not necessarily. Because once we’ve identified our territories, we can be just as ferocious as men in defending them.

It’s normal for humans to want to have areas of expertise that are unique to them. But can we afford the idea that we don’t have to share with anyone else? Look at the United States. It prides itself on being the epitome of democracy. But that only makes us look down on all other forms of government. And it makes us feel that we can tell (or force) other countries to do it our way.

Our insistence on protecting our territory is one reason why we refuse to co-operate with other countries. All we care about is protecting our own boundaries. It makes sense that the U.S. enjoyed the most good will during and after World War II, when it co-operated with other nations against Hitler’s and the Japanese’s attempts to take over the world. Compare that with the world’s attitude toward the U.S. now that we’re going it alone in Iraq. Or when we refused to participate in the Kyoto Protocol against global warming.

The reason this last point is significant is because co-operation is exactly what is needed in order to prevent war, whether it’s war against other countries or the war between the sexes. We have to stop thinking in terms of territory and open our boundaries to the influence of others.

Unfortunately, we’re not seeing many instances of co-operation these days. That could partly be because we protect our territory more when we feel it’s being threatened. Those who have recently or historically held the upper ground are feeling threatened by groups they feel are attempting to take over. Christians feel threatened by Muslims, Americans by terrorists, Republicans by Democrats, conservatives by liberals, Arizona by Mexico, Wall Street by Main Street, the rich by the poor, men by women.

War should always be a last resort. But too often it is the first reaction to a breach of territory. There are other ways to achieve ends that will satisfy the majority. But using them requires that we give up control over our perceived possessions (which can include intangibles like power, expertise, birthright, etc.). And that is something that few people are ready to do.

The End of Men?

Ellen Keim — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:50:18 +0000

The title, “The End of Men,” is provocative; in fact, it’s like waving a red flag at a bull. I can just see men reacting to it like this: “Those damn feminists! That’s been their agenda all along: to get men out of the picture!” And feminists are bristling at the implication that women have won the war between the sexes.

But that’s not really what the article is about. Hannah Rosin writes in the July/August issue of The Atlantic Monthly of the changes that have occurred in the last twenty or thirty years that favor women. But nowhere does she say that men are obsolete. What she is really asking, it seems, is, do men have as much power as they used to?

What’s it really about?

I’ve had a theory for years that the reason men seek to keep women down is because in reality they fear them and their potential power. That it is precisely because women are so competent that men feel so threatened by them. Most men have ambivalent feelings about women: they like them for some purposes (which I hardly need to go into), but become uncomfortable when they step out of those roles and begin to impinge on the territory of men.

Are women becoming more important?

Perhaps it’s not really the end of men that we’re seeing, but the end of patriarchy. Not that it’s in danger of disappearing any time soon, but I don’t think anyone can deny that its hold on the world is weakening. Even cultures that are still decidedly patriarchal are beginning to recognize that the more empowered women are the better off all people are. Consider this:

In 2006, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development devised the Gender, Institutions and Development Database, which measures the economic and political power of women in 162 countries. With few exceptions, the greater the power of women, the greater the country’s economic success. [From Rosin's article.]

The handwriting is on the wall. We ignore the well-being of women at our peril.

Are men giving up?

But does this mean that men are beginning to give up their position of power? Hardly. It’s not in their nature. Even though women now make up more of the work force than men do (only marginally more, but still) and attend and graduate from college in higher numbers, men are not likely to take women’s growing influence in society lying down. They still make most of the hiring and firing decisions, set the pay scales, orchestrate the promotions and own the companies. Men primarily conduct the wars, make the laws and head government committees and think-tanks.

In other words, we’re not seeing the changing of the guard. Women are not supplanting men. There is no matriarchy developing on the horizon.

Is this true for all men and women?

That doesn’t mean that Rosin’s article doesn’t make some valid points. But when she writes about how gender roles are changing, she is mainly writing about the segment of society that has the luxury of making those changes. The woman who makes more than her husband is a rarity among the lower classes. She might be employed and he isn’t, but she’s not exactly raking in the dough, nor is she stepping into a better job than he formerly held.

Women still have to work harder than men to get as far. And even then, they aren’t likely to make as much money. There is still a strong separation between the prestige and pay of “men’s work” versus “women’s work.” Just because some women have broken through the ranks to achieve male-like success, doesn’t mean that the barriers have been erased.

Will the war ever be over?

The problem with Rodin’s article is that she represents the gender debate as “either-or.” As if one sex winning means that the other sex automatically loses. She asks, “What if the economics of the new era are better suited to women?” as if one, and only one, sex will always be in charge while the other fades into the background.

There is only one answer, only one goal worth having, and that is to make sex/gender irrelevant. I’m not saying that there are no innate differences between the sexes. But these are only generalities. It’s counterproductive, not to mention stupid, to assume that you can predict a person’s accomplishments based solely on his or her gender. When it comes right down to it, we are much more than our biology. Each person needs to be judged as a human, not as a man or a woman.

Critics of feminism have the misconception that feminists are only for the advancement of women, when in reality their goal has always been for equality of the sexes. But as long as the sexes teeter back and forth in their scrabble to be the one on top, the goal of equality will be elusive.

The World’s Worst Mother (Video)

Ellen Keim — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:39:21 +0000

Ayelet Waldman tells how her essay about how she loves her husband more than her children caused a furor after it appeared in The New York Times. She is now officially known as the “World’s Worst Mother.” The video is 52 minutes long, but it is funny and gossipy and contains a lot of insight about the dilemma of modern motherhood. Fathers, there’s a message here for you, too.

Enjoy! Video here.

Read what Sandra Tsing Loh has to say about Ayalet Waldman’s bad motherhood in The Atlantic Monthly.

Sarah Palin Is NOT a Feminist!

Ellen Keim — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:15:38 +0000

Let’s get something straight: a feminist is not someone who dictates what others should do with their lives. Sarah Palin and her ilk insist that they are feminists even though they would take away all women’s right to determine whether or not they will have children. The irony here is that these pseudo-feminists are also against the federal government sticking its nose into anyone’s business—unless of course that “anyone” is a woman who wants to have an abortion. Apparently it’s all right for government, state or federal, to decide categorically that some citizens do not have the same rights as others.

To make the distinction clear, we ought to change the terminology used by both sides of the abortion debate. Just because you’re against abortion doesn’t mean that you are the only ones who value life. (In fact, it’s amazing how often anti-abortionists are also for capital punishment and complacent about killing in war.) And alternatively, just because you’re for choice doesn’t mean that you like abortion. It merely means that you uphold a woman’s right to make a choice about her own body.

I consider myself pro-choice and pro-life. I am not pro-abortion in the sense that I think abortion is the only answer for an unwanted pregnancy. But I am anti-force. People like Palin are pro-force. They want to force women to have babies they can’t afford to have, whether the cost is financial, emotional or physical.

I have four daughters. When they asked, I told them about my own abortion. And then I told them that they should never get themselves in the position where they would have to make that decision. Because abortion is regrettable. It’s morally and ethically complicated. Whether a woman makes the decision lightly or anguishes over it for the rest of her life is something we can’t anticipate or regulate. Every woman had different reasons and reactions. It’s not for any one of us to say what they should believe or how they should act on their beliefs.

A woman who insists that you cannot ever have an abortion is no more a real feminist than one who insists that you have to get married or stay home with your children. And if we allow such women to call themselves feminists, real feminists will forfeit their right to represent all women.

Sarah Palin does not represent me or my beliefs. I don’t represent hers. But if she had her way, my views would be irrelevant. They would be sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and insensitivity.

“Carousel” Teaches Me Something About Myself

Ellen Keim — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:54:44 +0000

I saw the film of the musical “Carousel” the other day at Columbus’ refurbished Ohio Theater. The setting was grand, the film bigger than life and the audience was made up almost exclusively of senior citizens from an assisted living center. This simultaneously made me feel young and old, since I’m not there yet, but not that far away.

But what did I expect? The film is 54 years old—it came out when I was four years old. The only reason I’m so familiar with it is because my mother was a musical fan and had the soundtracks of all the major musicals of the ’40s through the ’60s. I listened to them incessantly to the point where I had all the songs memorized by the time I was a teenager. My favorites were “Carousel,” “Camelot” and “West Side Story.” (I had a thing for tragic love stories.)

Because musicals were such a big part of my life, I’m sure they helped to shape my views about romance. That’s why seeing “Carousel” was such an eye-opener for me. All these years and I never realized that one of the movie’s main themes was domestic violence. If I ever did see the film, it was when I was very young and the soundtrack doesn’t clue you in to that aspect of the story. So I was oblivious to the fact that the musical actually condones domestic violence. It seems it’s okay in the name of love.

The “victim” is Julie Jordan, a sweet and innocent young woman, who elopes with the local bad boy, Billy Bigelow. After their marriage, Billy can’t find work and in his frustration, hits his ever-enduring wife. The local townsfolk are scandalized, but Julie sticks with him through thick and thin, because she loves him. One of the songs I loved the most was the one where Julie sings “what’s the use of wonderin’ if he’s good or if he’s bad…he’s your feller and you love him, and that’s all there is to that.” She also sings “Any time he needs you, you go running there like mad.”

Later on in the story, when their daughter, Louise, asks Julie if it’s possible for a slap to feel like a kiss, Julie assures her that it is. I was practically in shock by the end of the movie.

That was the model of true love that I grew up with. I internalized that message. If I was truly in love, I would put up with anything. I was determined to be just like Julie Jordan.

It wasn’t long before I found my Billy Bigelow. I was sixteen, he was two years older. He wasn’t exactly the “bad boy,” but he was suspect. For one thing, he was Jewish and that alone made him a curiosity in my all-WASP high school. He was also into theater and poetry. (I became entranced with him when I heard him recite “Babi Yar” by Yevgeny Yventushenko.) When we started dating, I was thrilled.

His former girlfriend, one of my best friends, warned me away from him. She said he was “sick.” I thought she was just jealous and to tell the truth, I was attracted to his “dark side.” It made our love seem more romantic. (I was also heavily influenced by Jane Eyre.) He soon declared that he couldn’t live without me. He told me that I could never leave him. In a way, I was flattered. I was in love with the idea of “undying love.” It didn’t help that I had lost my virginity to him. That alone made me feel that our lives were destined to be entwined forever.

My family didn’t care for him; that made him feel threatened. He began threatening to kill them, or to have them killed. He threatened to kill me and then commit suicide. He wasn’t physically abusive, but he might as well have been. And the crazier he got, the more I held on. I would prove everyone wrong. To me, he was a “tortured soul” who needed my love to be healed.

I’d like to say that I finally mustered the courage to leave him. But it wasn’t until he went on a theater tour of Europe for a couple of months that the spell I was under began to lift. Still, I didn’t see that I had to end things for my own sake. I fell in love with someone else while he was gone and that gave me the impetus to break up with him when he returned.

But he didn’t give up. He stayed in touch with me for years. The last time I had any contact with him, I was married and had just had a daughter. He called and told me that I was the one who had “gotten away” and that he would like to see me for old times ‘ sake. I met with him because of the misguided notion that he still had some kind of hold on me. I was in my 20s before I finally realized that he didn’t.

When I was watching “Carousel,” it suddenly hit me how twisted its message is and how much influence it had had on me as I was growing up. It conditioned me to believe that love means pain and sacrifice. The harder it was to love someone, the more determined I was to love him. I stuck to that pattern for years.

But it wasn’t until I married my fourth husband that I realized that I didn’t have to suffer for love. At first it felt funny to be in a healthy relationship. When my husband did things for me and stuck by me through my own craziness, I felt guilty and selfish. I was supposed to be sacrificing for him, not the other way around.

We’ve been married for eight years now and it probably took me at least four to begin to be comfortable being loved by man who is unselfish and giving. He’s no Billy Bigelow, that’s for sure, and I’m happy to report that I’m no longer a Julie Jordan.

Emergency Contraception: What It Is, How to Use It and How to Get It

Ellen Keim — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:17:33 +0000

The use of emergency contraception is very low in the United States (only one out of three women even know about it) compared to other countries. So low in fact, that a bill has just been introduced in Congress to establish a public education program to inform women and their health care providers about the its use, safety and availability. Similar bills were introduced in 2002, 2005 and 2007, but they never made it out of legislative hearings.

Why the ignorance about emergency contraception? And the resistance of law-makers to dispel that ignorance? There are a couple of factors at work here. One is that the FDA has been slow to approve emergency contraception even when it has been available and legal in some countries for several years. The FDA was also resistant to allowing emergency contraception to be sold over the counter. I’m not sure why the FDA drags its feet when it comes to emergency contraception, but part of the reason is probably politics.

Why politics? Because law-makers in this country are extremely sensitive about the abortion issue and there is a widespread, but erroneous, belief that emergency contraception causes abortion. This belief stems from the controversy about RU-486, otherwise known as the abortion pill. Basically, what RU-486 does is cause a medical, as opposed to a surgical, abortion. It is quite expensive, not just for the pills themselves, but for the required doctor visits both before and after taking them. Because it induces abortion, the patient has to be checked afterward to make sure that the abortion is complete. If it isn’t, a medical abortion must still be performed.

Emergency contraception, on the other hand, does not induce abortion. Instead, it works to prevent a pregnancy from happening in the first place. Some anti-abortionists will tell you that this is still an abortion, just as they will say that the birth control bill and IUDs cause abortion because they may prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus. But the medical profession does not consider a fertilized egg as the same as a pregnancy; pregnancy doesn’t start until implantation.

The form of emergency contraception currently available in the United States is known as Plan B. It is also known as the post-coital or “morning after” pill and is meant to provide contraception after unprotected sex or the failure of other methods of birth control. (One good reason for the use of emergency contraception is in the case of rape, but amazingly enough, not all hospitals will offer it.)

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work. The pregnancy will continue. (For more answers to questions about Plan B, go to the FDA web site here.)

Plan B is only available from a licensed pharmacist because the woman’s age has to be verified. Women 17 and under require a prescription from their doctor. Women over 17 can get it without one, but they still have to ask the pharmacist for it. Some people are pushing for it to be available off the shelf, so that it can be sold at gas stations and convenience stores like other forms of over-the-counter birth control, (meaning mainlycondoms). However, one thing that does make Plan B a little more accessible is that men are also allowed to purchase it.

There is also a Plan B ® One-Step now available which only requires one pill instead of two, taken 12 hours apart, as in Plan B. It is also only available through a licensed pharmacist and requires proof of age. Both Plan B and Plan B® One-Step have to be used within 72 hours of the unprotected sexual intercourse and cost anywhere from $35 to $60. However, Planned Parenthood will usually provide Plan B on a sliding scale or even free if you don’t have insurance or have a low income.

There is a new form of emergency contraception that has just been recommended for approval in the U.S. by a FDA advisory panel. To be known as Ella, its advantage is that it is effective up to 120 hours (or five days), two days longer than Plan B. Unlike Plan B, it does not contain progestin but is rather a progesterone blocker, which means that it could have an effect on the few pregnancies that do commence when taking it. This makes it similar to RU-486, although its function is not to induce a medical abortion. Because it is a bit more complicated than Plan B, it will probably be available only by prescription, no matter what the age of the woman.

For more information, see The Emergency Contraception Website.

Embrace Your Fat!

Ellen Keim — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:39:31 +0000

Before I start, let me make it very clear that I do not think it’s a good thing to be seriously overweight. No one in her right mind would purposefully gain weight she didn’t need. (Except for actors for roles and people like Donna Simpson, the 600-lb. woman who wants to get to 1,000—and you could certainly argue that she’s not in her right mind.)

But I’m sick of people (who are usually not overweight) characterizing fat people as weak, disgusting, even immoral. Prejudice against fat people is stronger than ever, what with all the emphasis on being fit and healthy (it is commonly assumed that fat people can’t possibly be healthy) and, of course, thin.

Then there all the statistics that inform us that 60% of America’s population is overweight (not obese, just overweight, which could mean that they’re packing an extra five or ten pounds) and that over 30% is morbidly obese (which makes it sound as if they’re the size of elephants). When people read those statistics, they shake their heads in disapproval and condemnation.

No one ever feels sorry for fat people. Their weight is always their fault, never mind that they gain weight easily, have a slow metabolism, a different body type, are on medication that causes weight gain or are restricted in their activity by a disability. They’ve “let themselves go” and that simply will not be forgiven.

I admire people like Kirstie Alley (above) and Kathleen Turner, who refuse to let their weight gain send them scurrying into the shadows in shame or embarrassment. (I’ve read that Turner’s weight gain was originally the result of the prednisone she took for her rheumatoid arthritis. Alley states that hers is the result of eating too much.) They are both beautiful, talented people and they shouldn’t have to apologize for being fat.

And then there’s the word “fat.” When I was a fat little kid, my mom used to say that I was “pleasingly plump.” There are lot of euphemisms designed to spare fat people’s feelings: chubby (for children), plus-size, large, big-boned, curvy, being a person of size, weight-challenged, full-figured, voluptuous, built for comfort—I’ve heard them all. I especially like it when people say, “But you have such a pretty face!”

I don’t like being fat. I try to control my eating, but one bad day can set me back for two weeks. I put on five pounds each year for the past two years when I broke my foot (yes, twice in a row) and was rendered immobile. I haven’t been able to get those ten pounds off and I hate myself for it, because I was once lighter and I don’t understand why I can’t get back there again. I admit that I don’t get as much exercise as I should, but I don’t see why I should have to put myself through the tortures of hell in order to lose enough weight to call myself slim again. (Yes, I used to be slim, although I never ever thought so. Now I’d love to be as “fat” as I was even thirty pounds ago.)

So what is the alternative? Could it be that I could actually accept myself the way I am? Or could I take it a step further and learn to embrace my fat?

That’s the goal of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA). Started in 1969, NAAFA’s goal is to promote the idea that being fat does not automatically mean that you are stupid, lazy, smelly, slow, lacking in willpower or self-control, socially inept, a burden on society or unattractive. (Even thin people can have any or all of those attributes.) It does mean that you will be discriminated against. Fat people are less likely to get hired or promoted, to receive adequate health care (everything is blamed on their being fat, and many doctors refuse to help them unless they lose weight), to receive the same level of service as a slim person and, of course, to find clothing that fits and is attractive.

People of average or lower-than-average weight can’t begin to fathom what it’s like to be fat in our society. Instead of being understanding, let alone accepting, they attempt to shame and lecture fat people into losing weight. What they do end up doing is creating an environment that is so judgmental and punishing, very few fat people are able to escape feelings of self-loathing. That only makes matters worse. And when a fat person does indicate that he would like to lose weight, he is expected to “just do it.”

These are the same people who think that depressed people should just “get over it” and that poor people should just work harder. It’s never that simple. There are a slew of physiological, psychological, sociological, economic and environmental issues that affect a person’s ability to lose weight.

It’s almost easier to lose the weight than it is to stop feeling bad about yourself once you’ve been branded as a “fattie.” It’s not at all unusual for a formerly fat person to continue to think that she’s fat. That’s one reason why it’s so hard to keep the weight off: she believes society’s assessment of her so much she’s uncomfortable trying to become something different.

It takes a lot of courage to buck the system and ignore all the messages that try to tell you that you’re inferior. But the only way to find happiness is to tell all the critics to go to hell. Embrace yourself the way you are. You deserve it.

The Life-Changing, Mind-Blowing Experience of Motherhood

Ellen Keim — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:28:03 +0000

Photo from Parents Connect

After you’ve been a parent for a while, you begin to take the fact that your children are in the world for granted. It’s as if they’ve always been here. Every once in a while you have a flashback to when they were born, or to life before motherhood, and at those moments you marvel at your transformation.

That’s right: your transformation. We’re used to talking about motherhood in terms of the changes our children go through, but the truth is it is our own changes that we struggle with the most. How did I get here? is a common refrain of all mothers. You even begin to forget what you were like before you had children.

You may have never intended to have children or felt particularly maternal. And yet suddenly—and it does seem to happen suddenly, despite nine months of incubating your child inside you—you find yourself turned inside out (in more ways than one). Your perspective changes. You may feel joy, you may feel terror, but whatever you feel, it is completely different from anything you’ve felt before.

I had my first child right before I turned 22. By the time I was 28, I had four. I became totally defined by that fact. Everywhere I went, I had four “appendages.” Everything I did, or wanted to do, became filtered by how it would affect my children.

To give you an idea of what motherhood can do to you, I need to make it clear that all I’ve ever wanted to do was write. And yet, in the key years of my children’s childhoods, I didn’t even keep a journal. Oh, I tried. But there was always something that required my mother “hat” instead of my writer “hat.” I wrote some, even had some things published, but it was never to the degree that I had envisioned it would be before I had children.

Did I resent that? Sometimes. But most of the time I was so wrapped up in the experience of being a mother, I didn’t have the time or the inclination to write about it. And even when I did write, I found that all I cared to write about had something to do with motherhood. No longer did my entire existence revolve around me. Now it was revolving around what these little beings were doing to me. I was a different person and sometimes I didn’t even recognize myself.

Children make you do things that you would have never thought possible when you were childless. Answering questions about your private parts, teaching your children how to clean theirs, (not to mention trying to figure out what to call them), trying to reason with a two-year-old (or a teenager), routinely cleaning up pee, poop and vomit, pretending to be the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, and keeping the pretense up even after you’re pretty sure your children have figured out the truth, soldiering on when you’re so exhausted you could drop, trying to be fair about who gets to ride “shotgun,” robbing your child’s piggy bank for lunch money, resigning yourself to never ever being alone again.

It does get better. Your children get potty-trained, they start school, they help around the house (if you threaten them enough), they start earning their own money, they learn to drive. They move on.

We do, too, if we’re lucky. But we never stop being mothers.