Strollerderby

What's with the hating on academics? Geez.

That article is BS and the author needs to be slapped with a dead fish. Good lord. I posted it to my FB page. Hopefully it will generate a healthy discussion between other ego-less, self worth-less women such as myself.

Hmmmm...I can't say that I use my FB page as my identity.  Its actually used to keep up with farflung relatives across three continents.  Rellies who have never seen my child and request frequent updates and pictures ;-).

I kind of like it when you get fired up like this, Brett. This is an invigorating read on a Monday morning!

I am very tired of women attacking other women, whether under the guise of feminism or the mommy wars or whatever. Just because we all have the same body parts doesn't mean we're all going to think and act the same at all times. I'd rather retain my individuality over any feminist cred I might have.

Also, FB is not that important. Come on.

Maybe I am wrong, but I always thought that feminism was about affording women choices and ensuring that no door was closed to them just because of their gender.  But why is it that the "feminists" seem to think that the only choice that is acceptable is to be a working woman who puts clawing her way to the top above everything else?  I CHOOSE to be a stay at home mom.  I CHOOSE to put a picture of my kid in my profile picture.  I CHOOSE to spend my Saturdays at the ball park and at gymnastics practice (although Ms. Katie would probably be ok with that since it is my daughter who is the ball player and my son who is a gymnast).

By taking away choices for women, Rellies is as bad as any man who tries to hold woman back because of her gender.

Roiphe should go and cuddle with Hanna Rosin - they both believe they know better than everyone else while telling us we all suck.

Roiphe is a little out of touch with reality, methinks. She should walk off campus once in a while and talk to real people.

This is pretty funny to me, because my profile photo is me, while my husband's is our two-year-old.  I'd better go tell him that he's less of a man and that he's sold out his identity.

Too many cheap shots to make this a worthy argument. And yeah, what's with all the anti-intellectualism and academic-hating?

CV- I agree! The entire focus of my FB is keeping in touch with relatives who want to see my son growing up. I feel better about having an account in my name than in his, and also feel better about putting photos and videos here and keeping them to friends only, rather than putting them on a public site like you tube. I'm sure we're not the only two people who use FB this way!

No need to be so self-depricating, Brett.  You make some very good points, and I agree with a lot of what you said.

Whenever someone has such a judgmental reaction to something as harmless as posting a picture of your child for your Facebook profile, or, in Rosin's case, breasfeeding, I can't help but wonder what nerve was struck.  I think Roiphe's essay says a lot more about Roiphe's insecurities than it says about feminism, parenting, or women in general.

Anne Roiphe has one daughter who is an amazing writer and human being, and another daughter who is an annoying mosquito in the ear of feminism. Emily Carter is the former. Katie Roiphe is the latter.

JenC, I hear ya! I generally only put up pics of my kids if I'm also in it (at least as a profile pic), but my husband has had a pic of *just* our elder son for months. What would Roiphe say about that? ;)

Jeanne, I only agree with about half of what you write, but I think that this is a great line: "Because now, apparently, we're not "supposed" to want to be parents. We're supposed to want careers and to read good books."

People (Meg, Catharine) who see this piece as anti-academic/anti-intellectual must be interpreting much differently than I.  Or are very insecure about their own associations with the academe and/or intellectualism.

I think that Meg and Catherine have a point. Brett, I think you're right about Roiphe, but I also think you're insecure about your own education. The repeated comments about intellectuals and the ivy league and stuff weaken your argument. I'm no academic, but that's how I see it:).

DSF - I see your point.  I also think Brett overdid it with the self deprecation, but the "hating on" stuff from Meg/Catherine seemed a little strong.  I guess if I were supersmart and armed with impressive credentials I wouldn't give a hoot how some poor sap (kidding) characterized academics in a blog.

I'm surprised that the only topic of discussion here is the FB comment; there's an entire article that examiones (shallowly, but what do you expect?) not only FB, but the development of a child-obsessed culture in which children are essentially turning into prize veal calves.

I actually agree with alot of Roiphe's comments, but I also recognize that anyone who was once lauded by Camille Paglia must be approached with a certain amount of restraint.

For the record, during my pregnancy I was terrified by the amount of incredibly tedious "child talk" that I was suddenly subjected to, and I am hoping that I too will not eventually reach the point where I am only able to discuss the minutae of life with child and what child will/won't eat and and and...I think we do a disserve to our kids and ourselves if we loose ourselves in their raising.

See, I come from the no kids on the profile pic for a different reason.  I worry about safety.  I don't think it's safe to have pictures of your kids publicly available.  I have no problem with tons of pix of them available to friends & family, but would be uncomfortable with them viewable by complete strangers.  I also like pix of myself only viewable by friends.  My profile pic is a closeup on my eye.  Certain friends use pix of pets or cartoons.  The profile pic is viewable by all.  Maybe I'm paranoid, but I think some effort to control personal information and your image should made.

Some of the disclaimers to his education and knowledge he offers are good. For example, it is highly likely, given her body of work, that Friedan would agree and care about this issue. She is most famous for writing about how the idea that women were supposed to be happy and fulfilled by child rearing and home keeping was often crap. Noting that he doesn't know much about feminism was important, I would say.

Also, the notion that feminism is about "choice" is an oft repeated one these days, and I think a bit misguided. Here's a helpful article about the issue: www.nytimes.com/.../15patti.html

In general, I would say, believing that you are freely making "choices" allows you to ignore the way things are still imbalanced in society, as well as the many, many women who do not have your "choices." This is not to say that if being a stay-at-home mom is for you, you shouldn't do that, just that you shouldn't ignore disparities in incomes, support, housework etc for women in general.

I noticed a long time ago that my male friends on Facebook use a photo of themselves but almost all of the women have a photo of their child or with their child on the profile.  Why?  Is that our identity?  Are men bad fathers for not doing the same?  I think women diminish themselves in many ways and this is one of them even though it is subtle.  Yes, we are proud of our kids but my husband does not need to talk about them all of the time.  Why are we so reluctant to stand alone without our kids?  Maybe it has become our identity as our jobs outside the home once were, as those jobs often are to men.  At social events the first question asked of a man is "What do you do?"  Women as asked, "How many children do you have?"  No one ever asks that question of a man until they have talked for a bit.  It is almost as if it is too personal of a question to ask a man but no one thinks twice of asking a woman such a personal question first of all.  Women are not as respected as men.  When we a pregnant everyone touches our bellies, gives us unsolicited advice, gets into our business.  Men are never in such an exposed position.  But worst of all women allow it.  In the US is is still assumed a womans' identity is dependant up her children and home and the mans' identity is dependant upon his career.  Things are not changing very much. You may not like it but it is true.  And it is our fault.

My dog is my Facebook picture right now...

I'm pretty sensitive to anti-academic attitudes and I didn't see Brett as showing one here.  But maybe that's because I think to call Katie Roiphe an academic is using the term too loosely.

I personally don't like it when women put their kids as their own profile picture or use "so-and-so's mother" as a handle online.  But I'd hardly bitch-slap them about it.  It's their business.

I put lots of photos of my kids on FB and being a mother is actually a big part of my professional identity too.  There's lots of nuance Roiphe is missing for a cheap shot at headlines.  Typical of her, if you ask me.

Sometimes a profile picture is just a profile picture. I read Roiphe's essay and I couldn't figure out why she was so agitated. 95 percent of the time, my FB profile photo is me. If I have a particularly amusing shot of my daughter or son, I use it for a day or two. I like my kids. I like the part of my life that's separate from them, too. I think the "meaning" behind the use of a child's photo on Facebook depends on the person.

Sometimes my FB photo is my child. Sometimes it is of me with my family. Sometimes it is just of my husband and I. Other times I use photos from my college, high school or elementary years. What does all this mean?

These photos represent many phases (all important) in my life. Why would I exclude my son, any more than I would exclude my best friends from college.

At the end of the day, feminism is about how you live your life as a woman and support others. Too often (as seen in this article) women are far too quick to criticize others. Maybe Katie should focus more on supporting other women instead of bashing them.

"...Roiphe seems to have a very immature view of the world (she calls herself "Katie" for Pete's sake)..."

I happen to call myself Katie as well.  It's my name.

While I enjoyed your article for the most part and was thoroughly irritated by that other Katie's ramblings, I thought this last non-point hurt your stance and credibility more than it helped.

Thanks for your dressing down of the academic babble! I really agree.  My take on Facebook, in my circle of friends, is that it is for catching up.  I find high school friends, old drinking buddies, college professors.  What better way to get people on my wave length than a few pics of me and the babe of mine??  I see her point though- there are women who have literally no pictures of themselves.  I was aware of that "issue" when posting my own kid's pics.  However, parenting is consuming.  Whether you're a woman or a man, it takes everything you have.  I like being able to show off my cute kid as part of my life too.  Thanks... L

I have always wondered what the logic is behind saying that having photos of your children online is not safe. How could this be used to harm or exploit the child? I am not being snarky, I am genuinely interested in what the thinking behind this is. I think that someone seeing a photo of your child on the internet is no different than someone seeing your child walking down the street and can't for the life of me figure out what people are afraid of. Can anyone enlighten me?

Brett (and others), I am totally with you on this. I was incensed by Roiphe's stupid and condescending article also. I, too, posted it on my FB page.

I admit, though, it DID give me pause if only to remind myself that YES, I am a mom but I am also ME. That is not a bad message...but I don't need Ms. Roiphe "reading into" my decision to put this or that photo on Facebook, geez!

Thanks for weighing in!

Yeah... My profile pictures have alternated between my husband, me alone, me and him together, my parents wedding photo, my dog, my baby, and a slew of other things.  The notion that my identity is defined by how I present my page on a social networking site is almost as dumb as saying that date-rape victims were asking for it.  

Brett, I love this post and I love you.

People have been known to "harvest" pictures of women or children online to use for their own purposes.  For instance, a friend of mine's ex-husband used a pic of a girl he found online to help himself pose as a woman online.  A photo of your child in front of their school, along with his name can give someone the knowledge of where to find your kid, generally what time, and what to call them so that they can convince your kid to go with them.  Those are only two things that can be done with pix found online.  I'm not a stalker or murderer so I'm sure there are a lot I haven't thought of.  The control of information and personal photos is also reccomended by nearly all police.

I agree with you Jeanne, my guess is that the original author is an old school second wave feminist. Both ways are trying to get at the same thing, women need respect and parity for what they do-- be it child care or in the work force-- Rolphe is focusing on the short term, women's behavior and how it damages people's perceptions of them (they're only maternal, they are just their children) rather than working on larger structural issues. I'm always on the side of working on structural issues, not shaming women.

Still, I do get tired of people who brush aside all feminism has achieved (especially the second wavers, who now are "strident") by repeating "choice" over and over.

Ann05 said:

In general, I would say, believing that you are freely making "choices" allows you to ignore the way things are still imbalanced in society, as well as the many, many women who do not have your "choices." This is not to say that if being a stay-at-home mom is for you, you shouldn't do that, just that you shouldn't ignore disparities in incomes, support, housework etc for women in general

~~~This seems to me to be making assumptions, and making a no win situation for women like me, who have looked at all the options (my grandmother was a bank president - my dad strongly encouraged :) me to get a "useful degree" but was excited when i dropped out of music school to play in a band - which helped me get through most of university before i married, dropped out again and started a family..

I think the problem with this type of feminist (above) and Rolphe is that they can *never* see motherhood as a true option - it's always oppression.  I honestly don't get that.  I am home all day with the little people i brought into the world and love more than anything/one except for God and my husband :)...  i bake bread, learn along with them, cuddle, snuggle... My friends very rarely are in the same  position.  Most are working full time, and leaving their frequently ill children with babysitters who make less than minimum wage.  Most are trying to cut back or make sacrifices so they can have *some* of the joys of motherhood.  Most say their husband is demanding that they work - that lifestyle choices have left them with no choice.  Who is oppressed?  Who has a lack of time for creative endeavour/political activism/self improvement/pure love and joy and quantity and well as quality time?...

Simone de Beauvoir said “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Hard line feminists are demanding that all women reject their children and insist that being a mother isn't a whole career in itself, capable of enriching the lives of not only the children, but the mother, and father as well, and worthy of whole hearted devotion and application of all our faculties  to do well.  

mamazee73, no offense, but I think you totally missed my point.

In the portion you quoted I said, if staying at home is for you, do it. I also said, pretty much exactly what you said, a lot of women aren't fortunate enough to make that choice. Maybe because their families can't afford it, because their spouse doesn't agree with them that this would constitute a job, because they live in unsafe neighborhoods and a daycare is better than their homes, because they are a single parent, etc.

You can make this choice. Other people can't. But if we pretend everybody has "choices" we don't have to recognize that no, not everybody does.

I think the notion that there are heaps of feminists out there telling people to reject their kids is a strawman (woman?). There are certain types of feminists that espouse that, sure. And some of them do see children as a route to oppression. It's not because children are inherently oppressive, or that caring for them is not without joy, but because they recognize in our current culture women who leave the workforce to raise children have a hard time getting back, that there are residual pay disparities because of maternity leaves (just held up by the supreme court!), that parenting by yourself can be lonely and tedious in a disconnected world and that it's not enough for all women.

Like I said, I would rather focus on changing these social forces than shaming individual women. But I won't pretend that problems don't exist, even if you think that makes me a "hard line feminist" who wants you to reject your children (which is nonsense, I'm home part time with my own).

What does it mean if your profile picture is that of your cat?

......and maybe someone choses to use a photo of her kids as her profile picture just because she can't find one of herself that she likes 'cause she always looks red-faced and blotchy!!

Marj -

Do you have actual evidence that a child has EVER been harmed by a person who found his or her picture on Facebook?

Do you let your children ride in a car?  Don't you think that it is MUCH more likely that they could be injured or killed in a car wreck than targeted in the manner you describe?

I recommend Lenore Skenazy's Free Range Kids book.  I know it's been pushed on this site and in the rest of the media quite a bit lately, but for good reason.

For someone who claims not to care what Katie Roiphe thinks or about the cultural relevance of Facebook - you sure devoted a lot of time and energy and space to the topic.

It's even worse when a guy puts a picture of his girlfriend (he's not hiding, he's bragging - and so are the mothers) and you spend a a few minutes wondering who would name their daughter "Travis."

Women like their kids. Is that a big revelation or an anti-feminist statement? Women are proud of and enamored by their kids. Putting their photos on Facebook is like flashing their photos from your wallet.

I've put my kid's pics on my fb because they are much cuter and skinnier than me.  Sad but true.

Some of us use our kids' pictures because we don't happen to have a lot of digital pictures of ourselves sitting around. I mean really, I don't have a headshot and I don't have anyone following me around with a camera. I do however have kids with grandparents, so I have thousands of pictures of them!

I think anyone who's really exercised over this should read this single salient point and explain what they think is wrong with it (and be prepared to defend yourself against those of us who think that YOU are as important as your offspring are):

"One’s children are of course an important achievement, and arguably one’s most important achievement, but that doesn’t mean that they are who you are."

Nonsense. Of course I'm proud of my child. If I had 1968 Camaro I'd throw that up on my profile photo too.  

But I do get annoyed when the only picture you can see of someone who is not a friend is the child--esp. when you haven't seen someone in 20 years and can't remember them exactly and they have a different name (another argument we can have). But I don't think it's a feminist problem.

Obviously, Roiphe speculated and oversimplified (like many popular press authors).  It's interesting just how defensive of a response she encited.  I mean, she never said she doesn't like your children (or anyone else's), and she didn't intend to single out one woman or another.  It *is* an interesting observation that so many women (and men) display their children in a profile image, and I can see her argument shadowing arguments that follow the history of motherhood (what it's meant over the years and what it means now).  Women *have*, at times in history, lost their autonomy after becoming mothers.

Is it *because* she's an academic?  Is it because her status -- her identity, excludes her from being speculative?

PS -

Who cares if there are more important things to discuss -- she's discussing her observation that there are lots of kids faces on mother's profiles on facebook.  Can you imagine how the world would be different if we were all evaluated by how *important* the subjects that we talked about or wrote about were?  

There are many reasons why women (and men) use pictures of their children for their Facebook profile.  One of my theories is guilt - I'm not a good parent if I don't.  Without looking into each Facebook album, how does she know that the picture is not of the actual person as a child, as one of my friends did?  How about a happy medium - a picture of you with your child, or even the whole family?  One friend used a recent picture taken that was of everyone's feet.  Wonder what Katie would have to say about that?

I think this whole article is BS. If you're ashamed of putting your childs' photo on an internet website then lets just all shoot ourselves now! Lets put paper bags over our kids' face when we go out in public because we don't want a stranger looking at them...Whoever wrote this is very immature and is "trying" to be heard. I use my daughters picture as a profile picture quite a bit...Its my way of saying "I'm proud of her". Aren't there worse things to worry about? Like putting our 12 year old girls on birth control for example...Now THAT is a story to tell!

i love this piece.  i just read the roiphe essay in question and had googled 'katie roiphe annoying'.  

she just seems to be such a privileged brat.  i have had a sick fascination with her unbalanced, egocentric rants since her first effort on date rape.

she starts in about facebook profile photos and then tries to make it into some kind of social commentary attacking women who identify strongly as mothers.  i'm surprised that she is now a professor.  her writing still seems bratty and young.