Permanent "Maternal Amnesia" - a betrayal
I had a moment when interacting with my sisters - one stated that motherhood had permanently robbed her of much of her intellectual capacity. "Maternal Amnesia", you know. They nodded together and said that their brains had turned to mush after becoming pregnant, and that they would never recover to any great extent. The elder, both her children now adults, looked smug about it, the younger, whose children are under five years of age, less so.
I remarked that though I experienced significant memory loss at the times I was pregnant and breast-feeding, my mind had rebounded just fine, thank you. The protestations of the elder sister got firmer, and she gave me the sly, conspiratorial smile that indicated that I was supposed to grab on to this "Eternal Maternal Amnesia" concept as though it were of advantage to me to confirm it. I realised that to her, the maternal amnesia tag is a great scapegoat for forgetfulness, mental fatigue, or instances of a lack of brain-power of whatever kind. As a mother, I was supposed to say 'Yes. Yes, we all have Maternal Amnesia - and that's why you men have to do all that nasty hard thinking for us. *giggle*' (wink, wink)
There is not much I can say to that except: "Fuck OFF!"
That is not what I actually said, but my quiet, flat rejection of the concept was received as a betrayal. A betrayal of mothers, whose lives should be made easier by being able to blame momentary lapses in cognitive performance on parenthood as though it were some noble sacrifice. My sisters looked at me as though I were a stubborn, slightly psycho and entirely humourless militant feminist.
I have no intention of going along with the suggestion that gestating and giving birth to a child - and subsequently raising it - means that I forever more have some level of acquired brain damage. My brain is fine. Not perfect by any means, but significantly more powerful than the vast majority of people, mothers or not. Whatever impairments I have can be more accurately attributed to things other than being a mother.
Yes, I do forget things, I do have trouble thinking on occasion, I have been known to get to an intersection when driving and wonder where the hell I was going, or even where I am. But that is because I, like any childless human, get tired. I get stressed. I have a busy and complex life. I am not as fit or perfectly nourished as I could be. I need more sleep. I get overloaded by the outrageous amounts of sensory input that I encounter every damn day. Raising three children takes up a substantial part of my energy, but no more than if I were nursing a relative with a terminal illness, writing a novel to deadline, or struggling with a thesis, - or if I were a farmer trying to keep my core blood-stock alive through a drought.
People everywhere undergo stresses and their performance suffers to an extent determined by so many influencing factors that it's pretty fair to call it luck. To suggest that these experiences - sustained or short-lived - leave those who endure them with permanent impairment to their intellectual ability is outrageous. To suggest that all women who bear children irreversibly reduce their intellectual potential is outrageous, offensive and wrong.
I can't express my shock and my own sense of betrayal at realising that my elder sister, at least, is willing to cheerfully perpetuate and compound the theory that mothers have less capacity to contribute to society (outside parental roles) than either men or childless women. Why would she do that to mothers? To me? Does she realise? Does she care? What is the pay off? Is it so important to have an excuse other than 'I'm exhausted' or 'I'm stressed out' or 'I have not had a break from my many, many unpaid and unacknowledged domestic jobs for nine years and am in a bit of a depressive rut'?
Is it just more socially acceptable to have a blanket excuse, even though it impugns the usefulness of all mothers? Somehow it offends me more than the "Don't ask me, I'm just a girl." cliché. Possibly because the 'Eternal Maternal Amnesia' idea is new to me, possibly because I see it as pseudo-science, possibly because I see it as compounding the problem of females being perceived as less intellectually able than men in the first place.
Apart from anything else, I believe that it is just plain bad for women with intellectual aspirations to have the spectre of 'diminished capacity though motherhood' brandished at them. Yes, priorities shift when a baby arrives and parenthood can change anyone, but having a baby does not equate with permanent impairment of intellectual capacity.
Anyone with good science supporting the phenomenon of Maternal Amnesia can make an argument that it does impact the mental capabilities of mothers and I would not be surprised, but I would be ... fascinated to see evidence that it persists far beyond the point of weaning - or the point of the child/ren going to school - or growing up and leaving home, as is the case with my elder sister.
Now I am getting tired and starting to ramble and repeat myself. Is it because of Maternal Amnesia? I am rather more inclined to think that it's because this is my first week of Information Technology Lectures at the main campus of the University, and funnily enough, I'm tired.
I remarked that though I experienced significant memory loss at the times I was pregnant and breast-feeding, my mind had rebounded just fine, thank you. The protestations of the elder sister got firmer, and she gave me the sly, conspiratorial smile that indicated that I was supposed to grab on to this "Eternal Maternal Amnesia" concept as though it were of advantage to me to confirm it. I realised that to her, the maternal amnesia tag is a great scapegoat for forgetfulness, mental fatigue, or instances of a lack of brain-power of whatever kind. As a mother, I was supposed to say 'Yes. Yes, we all have Maternal Amnesia - and that's why you men have to do all that nasty hard thinking for us. *giggle*' (wink, wink)
There is not much I can say to that except: "Fuck OFF!"
That is not what I actually said, but my quiet, flat rejection of the concept was received as a betrayal. A betrayal of mothers, whose lives should be made easier by being able to blame momentary lapses in cognitive performance on parenthood as though it were some noble sacrifice. My sisters looked at me as though I were a stubborn, slightly psycho and entirely humourless militant feminist.
I have no intention of going along with the suggestion that gestating and giving birth to a child - and subsequently raising it - means that I forever more have some level of acquired brain damage. My brain is fine. Not perfect by any means, but significantly more powerful than the vast majority of people, mothers or not. Whatever impairments I have can be more accurately attributed to things other than being a mother.
Yes, I do forget things, I do have trouble thinking on occasion, I have been known to get to an intersection when driving and wonder where the hell I was going, or even where I am. But that is because I, like any childless human, get tired. I get stressed. I have a busy and complex life. I am not as fit or perfectly nourished as I could be. I need more sleep. I get overloaded by the outrageous amounts of sensory input that I encounter every damn day. Raising three children takes up a substantial part of my energy, but no more than if I were nursing a relative with a terminal illness, writing a novel to deadline, or struggling with a thesis, - or if I were a farmer trying to keep my core blood-stock alive through a drought.
People everywhere undergo stresses and their performance suffers to an extent determined by so many influencing factors that it's pretty fair to call it luck. To suggest that these experiences - sustained or short-lived - leave those who endure them with permanent impairment to their intellectual ability is outrageous. To suggest that all women who bear children irreversibly reduce their intellectual potential is outrageous, offensive and wrong.
I can't express my shock and my own sense of betrayal at realising that my elder sister, at least, is willing to cheerfully perpetuate and compound the theory that mothers have less capacity to contribute to society (outside parental roles) than either men or childless women. Why would she do that to mothers? To me? Does she realise? Does she care? What is the pay off? Is it so important to have an excuse other than 'I'm exhausted' or 'I'm stressed out' or 'I have not had a break from my many, many unpaid and unacknowledged domestic jobs for nine years and am in a bit of a depressive rut'?
Is it just more socially acceptable to have a blanket excuse, even though it impugns the usefulness of all mothers? Somehow it offends me more than the "Don't ask me, I'm just a girl." cliché. Possibly because the 'Eternal Maternal Amnesia' idea is new to me, possibly because I see it as pseudo-science, possibly because I see it as compounding the problem of females being perceived as less intellectually able than men in the first place.
Apart from anything else, I believe that it is just plain bad for women with intellectual aspirations to have the spectre of 'diminished capacity though motherhood' brandished at them. Yes, priorities shift when a baby arrives and parenthood can change anyone, but having a baby does not equate with permanent impairment of intellectual capacity.
Anyone with good science supporting the phenomenon of Maternal Amnesia can make an argument that it does impact the mental capabilities of mothers and I would not be surprised, but I would be ... fascinated to see evidence that it persists far beyond the point of weaning - or the point of the child/ren going to school - or growing up and leaving home, as is the case with my elder sister.
Now I am getting tired and starting to ramble and repeat myself. Is it because of Maternal Amnesia? I am rather more inclined to think that it's because this is my first week of Information Technology Lectures at the main campus of the University, and funnily enough, I'm tired.
posted by Jac | 9:41 pm
2 Comments:
Hmmm... I think there is a similar phenomenon for men - the 'mere male' notion promoted in magazines.
We are absent-minded and forgetful (manifest in such things as forgetting to do domestic chores or forgetting anniversary dates). We are also lacking in observations skills (e.g. "What kind of dress was she wearing?" "I cannot remember - I only know it looked fantastic") or intuition ("how was I supposed to know she meant that?"). We do dumb things (as depicted in ads) like turn tampons into playthings for kittens ("mousy mousy").
It allows women to dismiss us as hopeless ("just a man") but it also allows us to get away with all sorts of work minimisation. And it is lifelong rather than dependent on status like parenthood.
I get annoyed by this as I do display many of these characteristics but I attribute them to my lifelong dorkiness rather than my sex. Blame me rather than males as a whole. Better still live with my faults and try to work some kind of compromise with me. How many of these annoyances truly matter?
I do find disparaging depiction of men offensive. I see the characterisations - especially in commercials - and I can't imagine the howls of outrage if the gender roles were reversed to make the woman the butt of the joke.
I also rail against statements like 'boys will be boys' and 'it's a man thing' (when it pertains to complaints about males who behave badly or who cannot do their own laundry etc.) It fosters the idea that bad behaviour is inevitable and permitted - for men.
Imagine if the "stupid" and "ill-behaved" expectations/labels were put about by men to apply to all men who had ever fathered children.
The women who promote the 'child-bearing results in brain damage' idea appear to seek a degree of acceptance for 'dumb' behaviour on their part, in a similar way as you describe males exploiting their 'hopelessness' to minimise work.
Post a Comment
<< Home