Motherhood identity politics

Dana Goldstein has an interesting article in the American Prospect about female politicians who front their motherhood as a political credential.

In 1996 Hillary Clinton reminded us that "it takes a village" to raise a child. In 2007, Nancy Pelosi keeps reminding Americans that she's a grandmother from San Francisco.

Dana wonders whether all this maternal symbolism is good for women:

It was a new articulation of the mommy mantra -- the idea that what qualifies women for politics isn't their intelligence, their experience, their policy proposals, or even their character, but rather their inherent identities as feminine caretakers.
On a gut level, I'm not crazy about the mommy schtick. Yet, as a feminist and a partisan Democrat, I'm not going to complain. As Amanda argued several week ago, Nancy Pelosi's in-your-face parenthood seems to be reaching a lot of women who might otherwise feel alienated by Democrats.

Electoral politics is about symbolism, not syllogism. It's like the Village People. Everyone needs to play a character.

Veterans don't necessarily make better legislators. Nobody said that John Kerry should have been president because he was a decorated Vietnam vet. On the other hand, his service was a powerful symbol of his patriotism and evidence of his leadership abilities. That's why Karl Rove hit so hard with the Swiftboat Liars.

Motherhood is a powerful metaphor, too. Nobody would say that Nancy Pelosi deserves to be Speaker of the House because she's a woman. On the other hand, if she can use her life experiences to market her very real talents, I don't have a problem with it.

Besides, good child-rearing is an achievement. If you've raised kids, that's an important part of your life's work. If it's acceptable to run as a cowboy, or an entrepreneur, or soldier, why not as a Mom?


Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.